The Harrowing World of Linux

November 5th, 2010

Perhaps I’m a Linux newb – but I don’t think so.  What is the definition of a “Linux Newb”?

Learning Linux is like learning anything.  The more you know the more you know you don’t know.  Right?

For the past 4 years I’ve been in a conflicting relationship.  My work environment was 100% Linux.  My home environment was 100% Windows.

I’d never really used Linux prior to this job (which since I’ve moved on from) so the overwhelming command-line interface was tedious…at first.

I have experience with Fedora, RHEL, CentOS then Kubuntu.  In that order.  There are pros and cons to both operating systems and anyone who suggests otherwise is a fanboy fool.  The real problem arises in that what is a pro to one person might be a con to another.

The first question you should ask yourself is:  What do I want to do on the computer?

The categorization of pros and cons should become more clear if you can effectively answer that question.

Do you like to play video games?  Does your computer experience tend to be over 80% video game play and 20% browsing Facebook?

If you answered yes, go Windows and don’t look back.

For any other use of computers the suggestion for operating systems comes down to a matter of taste.  Is there anything that one operating system can do what the other can’t?  Yes, but those situations are so few and far between they can’t really be used to support one OS over another.  In fact, if you have ever run into a situation where one OS offered a service you needed that couldn’t be found on another OS then you’re already in a position to decide which OS you need.

An example of this might be real-time processing.  Windows does not allow access to system level commands at a “real-time” level.  Again, if you are doing real-time software development you probably already know which OS you need/prefer.

As a general comparison I’m going to lay some “new to Linux” issues you would run into compared to Windows.

Ease Of Setup

Although there are certain distributions of Linux that have become more user-friendly Windows is still easier to setup.

Customization

Linux takes the cake here.  Windows has very limited customization while Linux can be customized to do anything that is actually possible.  Here is the kicker though:  How much time do you want to spend trying to figure out how to force the Num Lock key to stay on when you boot up?  How much time do you want to spend installing a video driver?  How much time do you want to spend setting up a C++ IDE?

Sure, Linux is customizable like the day is long but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s convenient.  How hard is it to push the Num Lock key when you need it?  Why not just rely on the GeForce drivers distributed by Nvidia?  (without having to sudo apt-get some 3rd party software then sudo init 1 to kill X but only after you’ve cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup so you can recover if you screw up…it goes on and on…yeah, it’s not easy).

In the sense of brute customization Linux wins but be prepared to brute force your way to those nifty customizations.

Cost

Obviously Windows is more expensive than Linux.  This argument, to me, is the most shallow.  Consider this:  Linux is open source.  Well, duh…but what does that mean?  No accountability whatsoever.  Yeah, if something shits the bed while you’re using it you are fucked unless you have the know-how to fix the problem or are patient enough to spend hours browsing forums searching for a fix.  Or, god forbid, finding an unknown bug and relying on forum discussions in order to come up with a fix.

I’m sorry but my time is valuable to me.  If I have to search on the Internet to solve every problem/question I have about Linux that time adds up.  After how many hours would it have been more constructive for me to just buck up $100 and buy Windows?

It’s not uncommon to spend an hour trying to get dual monitors to work in Linux.  If you are in Windows your video card will recognize there are two monitors and you just have to click a button to configure it.  In Linux you have to edit text files in dusty corners of the OS in order to configure it.

Is it harder to type a few lines into a text file than to navigate a few menus/windows to find a configuration window?  No.  It is harder to track down where the fuck that file is because there is absolutely no indication that such a file is accessed, exists or is necessary for your dual monitor needs.

The cost of Linux may not be monetary but you can be sure it’ll cost you a fuck load of time.

Development

By development I’m referring to coding, scripting and processing.  You know, programming stuff (databases, C++, PHP, Java, etc).

It’s very difficult to argue against MS Visual Studios.  I’m not a huge fan but I must admit it’s well refined, well supported and well documented.  The IDE is as good as anything out there – and it’s free!

Why do I prefer development in Linux?  Probably because it’s what I’m used to.  The potential efficiency with Linux offers a bit of spice to this discussion.  Consider a tedious task of moving files around from folder to folder.  Sure you can write a program in Windows to do the job but I think you’ll find it easier to complete the task in Linux using some form of scripting.

One might argue that a Python script in Windows is the same as a Python script in Linux.  Yes, but have fun installing Cygwin and a truck load of other programs to provide the back-end needed to properly support Python and other programming languages.  Linux comes with all that stuff built in.  If by some chance it’s not there a simple sudo apt-get python will fix the problem.

There are so many situations I could discuss that it’s just loony.  In the end it really comes down to what you want to do with your OS.  You want to customize and design programs to share with other people?  Clearly Linux is your answer.  You want minimal interfacing and just like to play games and browse the Internet?  Clearly Windows is your answer.

Here’s another fun issue you’ll have if you decide to go with Linux.  Which distribution should you get?  hahahaha…have fun spending hours deciding that one.  (here’s some help – http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/)

Say What You Mean

February 11th, 2010

ShoutWe’ve all heard conservative people express themselves without the use of profanity.  “Gosh darn, poop!”  Seriously?  We all know what you mean and intent is the only thing that carries with it any moral weight.  Just say “God damned, shit!” lest you expose yourself as a hypocrite.

This is a point I hold with strong conviction.  What other way is there to look at it?  From a biblical standpoint a sin is born in the heart – meaning, what you intend to be said or done is what God judges you on.  Is there any difference between the two expressions “Gosh darn, poop!” and “God damned, shit!”?

Clearly one is said with expletives and the other is ‘toned down’ to slang.  The form of speech is different – each offering different phonetic patterns.  The meaning is exactly the same.

If your wife or girlfriend asks “Do these pants make me look fat?” and you reply “Of course not, you look healthy.” are you lying?  If she asks “Do I look like I have a pear shape?” and you respond “You don’t look like a fruit at all.” are you lying?  Clearly she doesn’t look like a fruit, but you avoided the question altogether.  Your intent by doing so is to avoid hurting her feelings by assuring her she holds no resemblance to a pear, cow or any other obese-looking entity.  What if she actually does resemble an obese-looking entity?

We are faced with these kinds of decisions on a daily basis.  You find yourself running late and when you get to work your boss suggests you be on time from now on.  Do you hang him the bird and respond “Hey, jack ass, it’s not like I make a regular habit of this…I had a rough time in traffic.” or do you respond “I’m sorry about that, I’ll be sure to leave home a bit earlier from now on.”?  You mean the same thing in your heart but you express that meaning differently in your words.  With the latter expression you are directly lying and with the former expression you will likely lose your job – or at least find yourself reprimanded.  What is the “right” thing to do?

It’s situations like these that drive me insane.  I don’t want to lie because I think it’s inherently wrong but I’m forced to lie all day every day so that I can maintain a job and support my family.  What the fuck is up with that?

Increase In Depravity

February 8th, 2010

gloomySeveral weeks ago a few of us got together and watched the movie Gamer.  The premise of the movie revolves around the media of the future.  It addresses the future of the Internet, how society will work and advances in media control.  The main focus of the movie is the plight of a death row inmate who is offered freedom if he can survive a series of death matches where a user controls him like a gaming avatar.

The reason I bring this up is because a question was posed upon the completion of the movie by one of my friends.  “Do you think gaming could ever come to that?”

The question was directed at the way ‘Society’ was portrayed in the movie.  ‘Society’ is an online activity that people pay a premium to access.  This activity involves using mind control on another human being and having them wander around doing your bidding.  Of course there was a high measure of sexual activity that occurred.  In general it was just a massive ‘party scene’.  People would use their avatars to go clubbing, drinking, dancing etc.

Not only do I think gaming could come to that…I think it will.  I believe that if such an activity were offered to people tomorrow they probably wouldn’t bite.  I’m sure there would be a number of sick individuals who would enjoy using others as their toys but the vast majority would have severe reservations.  If, however, this type of media were offered at a gradual pace I think people would latch on to it.  Imagine a video game where you can control other people?  That would be pretty cool.  I don’t think I’d want to hurt the person but to be able to actually control all their movements would be amazing.

Then, when you consider that everyone who is being controlled is not only consenting to being controlled but also being paid, it opens up Pandora’s Box.  If a person consents to a legal activity is it then wrong to have them do it?  Clearly it isn’t wrong for them to choose to do it but is it wrong for you to make that choice for them?  If I consent to eating an apple every morning for breakfast would it be wrong if you took control of my mind and forced me to eat the apple?

It’s merely a slippery slope from there.  People desensitize so easily I can see us pressing the envelope a little more each day until it’s completely out of control.  Day 1:  I forced him to eat an apple.  Day 12:  I forced him to run up the stairs skipping every other step.  Day 35:  Today we skipped two steps at a time.  Day 49:  He tripped when trying for 3 steps at a time…it was pretty funny.  Day 106:  He crawled around on his hands and knees all day.  Day 612:  I threw him down a flight of stairs…he totally got rocked.  Day 1022:  I threw him down an elevator shaft…now I have to find another avatar.  You get the idea.

With my personal experience on forums and newsgroups I don’t see this as a stretch by any means.  People talk tough, sure, and wouldn’t always back up what they say with actions but I think the rate of desensitization that would occur allows for these kinds of extremes to be taken by even the average person.

Perhaps this is a gloomy outlook on the potential of my fellow man but I’ve seen little proof to the contrary.  It seems that our nature is to destroy ourselves.

I Feel So Alone

December 14th, 2009

aloneI’ve recently joined the social networking site Facebook.  My reluctance was matched only by my regret.  The initial reaction was that I could finally maintain some measure of interesting conversation between friends that I probably wouldn’t otherwise have access to.  I’m not much of a ‘phone’ guy and rarely, if ever, use them.

Jonah Moreno: Why don’t you have a cell phone?

Dakota Skye: Because I’m afraid someone might call it.

This is one of my favorite lines from a movie.  (Dakota Skye – wonderful film, by the way)

Instead I prefer to keep in touch via non-intrusive means.  That is, I prefer to have conversations with people where the medium requires a moment of thought between responses.  Too often we find ourselves speaking too quickly regarding ideas.  Our initial reactions are almost always emotional.  Since my personality tends to be rather harsh or abrupt I have found that when I force myself to take a few moments to think through a response I can generally express myself far more succinctly and rationally.

There exists a feature on Facebook called ‘Wall’.  The Wall allows you to type short phrases to share with your online friends.  I began using my wall as I thought any Facebook user might.  I started conversations with my friends.  For obvious reasons my conversations weren’t too personal but rather something I would ask to a group of people.  Several of my friends have responded and we have a bit of back-and-forth but the conversations seem to die out.

In search of other conversations among friends I went to other’s Walls.  I’ve found nothing but simple-minded statements about a new item someone put in their living room or what they did this last weekend.  Boring and meaningless.  Where are the conversations about the meaning of life?  Why is there no political discourse?

It seems that so many of us are chasing a medium to avoid having to ask ourselves the questions that truly matter.  I know there are others who feel the way I do but we are so few and far between that I get a true sense of loneliness.

…maybe I just need to go back to myspace.  (j/k – that was way worse)

Defining Moments And Reflection Lost

December 8th, 2009

fadedThere are periods of time in your life where you can distinctly separate yourself as “prior” and “subsequent”.  Sometimes these periods are a few days and sometimes they are several months.  Sometimes these changes are blatant and obvious and sometimes they are subtle and overlooked.  Take, as an example, college.  You can very easily see that you were a completely different person prior to attending college than you were when you graduated.  The “prior” had expectations, aspirations and ambitions.  The “subsequent” had reasoning, knowledge and resolve.

My favorite personal example is a course I took called Advanced Calculus.  It was essentially an introductory course into real analysis – an area of mathematics which deals with continuous sets and the measures of them (roughly).  It was my first course involving true proofs.  We discussed the concept of countable and uncountable sets.  The use of a supremum of one set compared to an infinum of another can yield intriguing results.  I can categorically differentiate my maximum capability for thought process before and after that course.  Oddly enough I can’t make a quantitative differentiation.  I can’t even begin to imagine my “prior” thought process.  All I know is that my “subsequent” thought process are vastly enlightened.

What other periods in your life might affect someone in this way?  War.  Murder.  Marriage.  Love.  Having a child.  The death of a loved one.  All of these would very likely rift the “prior” and “subsequent” self.  Clearly this can’t be said to be either a good thing or a bad thing.  It’s just the molding of the personality.  The development of the mind.  The transformation of the soul.

Upon my completion of a full year of Advanced Calculus I was able to process concepts differently.  It’s nearly unquantifiable – something a person must experience in order to truly understand what I’m talking about.  Each rift is unique and – I’m speculating here – probably isn’t experienced the same from person to person.  My classmates probably experienced a similar rift as myself, but their description of it may be different.  There was a meme among the mathematics students that went along with that course:  Advanced Calculus, it separates the men from the boys.  We used to jokingly modify it to read:  Advanced Calculus, it makes boys out of men.  The amount of mental expansion that took place during that course has been unmatched.  There have been courses that I would consider more difficult – EMF, PDEs, Propagation and Radiation, Signals and Systems, etc.  None matched Advanced Calculus in terms of pure brute you-must-develop-your-ability-for-logical-manipulation.

I believe that under certain circumstances an expansion that rifts “prior” and “subsequent” – much like Advanced Calculus did for me – can exist for others in different territories.  During the last semester of my senior year I had a course in religious philosophy.  It was a course that was not offered to freshmen and sophomores due to it’s “rift” effect.  It’s difficult to quantify.  The concepts, topics and rhetoric digested in a course like that carry with it too much breadth for the average person to bear.  It’s almost a necessity to have a weening process otherwise much of the meaning behind the topic will be completely lost and no rift can occur.  I had a rift occur during that course but it’s magnitude was rather small but by no means subtle.  At the same time, I’m positive rifts occurred in my classmates.  I’d guess that these rifts probably quite nearly match the rift I experienced in Advanced Calculus.  Again, I’m just speculating…

What about subtle rifts?  During the summer between my first two years at college I took a course in public speaking.  Fortunately I’m a bit of a natural at speaking in front of an audience because of my experience in acting (theatre, acting classes etc).  During one course the professor brought in a guest speaker to talk to us about life experiences.  During his speech I came to an amazing epiphany about myself.  It was abrupt and powerful.  I can’t explain what occurred and what realization I had but his ability to put this one idea into words really landed with me.  I spoke with him briefly after the class and it was one of the most enjoyable conversations I’ve ever had.  I never saw him again.

The human mind is fragile.  It can bend and break so easily and without warning.  When will the next “subsequent” occur for me?  Am I currently in the midst of change?

Marriage is a Sham!

November 17th, 2009

chapelAs many of you know I recently got married.  Prior to this marriage I had done a great deal of pontification on the subject – as one would expect.  I wouldn’t say I ever had ‘cold feet’ but I did have my doubts.  Not about my wife (she’s friggin’ awesome, by the way) but rather about the institution of marriage.  What is the point?

My wife and I had been living together for 10 months prior to the marriage.  During this time I realize one very key reality…marriage is completely unnecessary.  I can truthfully say the only difference between living together and being married is that I have a ring on my finger.  That is all.  Financially it’s the same.  Emotionally it’s the same.  Philosophically it’s the same.  There is no difference…except legally.

Now my wife and I are legally obligated to one another.  If she goes to Vegas and puts our house as collateral because that shit is landing on black then I hold 50% of the responsibility for her actions.  (hopefully that shit actually does land on black)

I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about marriage.  His initial conception of marriage was how awesome it is (he’s also married).  After the claim of awesomety he began to qualify why by making a list of the awesome.  It contained many of the usual things one would expect – love, devotion, friendship, security etc, etc, etc.  It was then I realized that marriage isn’t a requisite for any of it.

Who ultimately benefits from marriage?  Speaking entirely from an emotional standpoint I would suggest the family – from my experience, specifically the family of the bride.  There is an all to prevalent taboo that comes with unwed couples living together – especially in traditional families.  I find it complete and utter bullshit.  I love my wife as much today as I did when she moved in.  There has been no change in my commitment to her life, happiness and well being from day one until this moment.  Now that I have a ring on my finger other people know this?  I don’t give a flying fuck what other people think about my feelings for my wife.  Period.

Speaking entirely from an economic standpoint I would suggest the government stands to gain the most from a marriage.  The standard family footprint is a pocket full of gold for the economy.  Anniversary gifts, vacations, holidays, birthdays…these are all traditionally things we dump money into the economy for.  Then when children come along, which for some reason everyone just expects to happen, even more money is dumped into the economic machine.  I’m not opposed to a thriving economy – in fact, it’s what I prefer.  What bothers me is that our fundamental traditions encourage us to make poor fiscal decisions in support of marriage and family.

What do I mean by this?  Well, how often is it the case that a couple has their honeymoon, anniversary or holidays purely on liquid assets?  Uh, not often at all.  This just promotes people to fall further and further in to debt.  I’ve actually been able to pay for our honeymoon using my money.  What I mean is I haven’t needed a credit card to make it happen (granted I did purchase everything on the credit card due to convenience but I will be paying it off in one lump sum because I have the assets to do so).  I’d make a guess that over 90% of couples don’t have the luxury of being able to boast the same financial situation.

Tax credit?  Nope…it’s actually termed the ‘Marriage Tax’.  If my wife and I make similar wages we will end up being taxed more than if our wages were disparaging.  That is, if we make 100k together and each makes 50k we get taxed much more than if I make 80k and she makes 20k.  WTF?

The institution of marriage is a sham.  The love, commitment and happiness is completely independent of being legally obligated to each other.  I’m a happily married man and I do not support marriage whatsoever.

…I am enjoying the term ‘my wife’ though.  :)

A Human’s Capacity For Beauty

October 30th, 2009

natureThe capacity of the human mind to understand and appreciate beauty is an amazing trait.  Have you ever stopped to wonder why you find something particularly beautiful, fascinating or interesting?  The mechanisms at work that are necessary for the mind to comprehend and accept beauty must be quite complicated.

Personally, I have a difficult time noticing anything I’m not deliberately focusing on.  Anyone who knows me can attest to this.  The countless times I’ve dismissed an observation is comical.  My roommate in college had a 6 foot plant hanging from his shelf that draped over his desk and to the floor.  It took me 4 months to notice it was there.  I noticed him watering the plant one day prior to the Christmas vacation – he was going to be gone for a few weeks so he wanted to water it before he left.  I thought it was a new plant he may have received from a friend as a Christmas gift.  I inquired about his new plant and asked where he got it.  He looked at me with confusion and was speechless.  He eventually told me that the plant had been in this same spot since the first day of school.  True story.

Recently an experiment was done by the Washington Post about people observing beauty.  They placed a man in a D.C. subway station and had him play the violin.  They then took note of how many people stopped to listen, payed him money into his tip jar (a hat on the ground) or recognized him (or his instrument).  The results were as you expect – a few people placed some change or a dollar into his hat, several children stopped to listen but were immediately pushed along by their parents, occasionally a person would stop to listen for a few minutes but would eventually continue with their morning commute.  The man played for 1 hour, made $20 and received no applause or recognition of his work.

It turns out the man playing was Joshua Bell, who is world renowned as one of the greatest musicians playing one of the most intricate pieces ever written.  The instrument he was playing on is valued at $3.5 million and two days prior he had sold out a Boston concert hall where seats sold for an average of $100 each.

This is clearly an extreme case.  You take one of the most talented musicians in the world playing one of the most majestic pieces ever written and nobody recognized it for the beauty being portrayed.  Admittedly I wouldn’t have recognized him or probably found a great deal of appreciation for his playing.  What is wrong with me?  Music strikes the human soul in a way nothing else does.  There has been documented evidence of music actually changing moods and mental states in humans.  It’s remarkably powerful and very little is understood about it.  Yet, the masterpiece in the D.C. subway went almost completely ignored.

Clearly there are distinct levels of beauty.  Joshua Bell’s performance must be near the “top of the list” but clearly each person recognizes beauty differently.  How is it that one mind finds beauty in Bach when another mind finds beauty in Tool?  What about the mind that finds beauty in both?  If so many people can so easily dismiss Joshua Bell’s performance can you imagine the “lesser beauty” they miss on a daily basis?  The love of their family and friends.  The companionship they have with their cat or dog.  The brisk morning air as they walk from their car to the office.  It all goes unnoticed.

Beauty is a motivation in so much of what we do.  As I deal with technical concepts on a daily basis I can even find beauty – and much prefer it.  When I see a portion of code that is well written and clever I find beauty in it.  It’s appealing, preferable and a pleasure to work with.  Orchestrating a difficult proof with a powerful insight instills a sense of beauty that cannot be matched – it’s a different sense of accomplishment than one normally feels.

The harsh reality is that as we find ourselves repeating our daily routines the amount of beauty decays steadily with the familiarity we have with it.  Is there an inverse correlation between familiarity and beauty?  My personal experience has lead me to believe it’s true for myself.  When I find something fascinating I find a huge drive to know more about it’s beauty.  Once I understand it I appreciate it at “another level”.  However, when the next thing comes around that instills new fascination I find it to be more beautiful than my previous obsession.

I reminisce about the ambition I had as a younger man and the beauty I found on a daily basis.  There seems to be very little beauty to be experienced as of late.  Perhaps I just haven’t been noticing the beauty around me.  Perhaps my true happiness lies in the beauty I can find in life.  Perhaps I find true beauty in knowledge.  Perhaps I find beauty in the idea of what I experienced in my past.

Voodoo Magic

October 15th, 2009

black_magicI received an email from a reader suggesting an interesting topic of discussion.  Interesting, indeed.

Our discoveries in science are increasing at an incredible rate.  The depth of knowledge in every field of science is increasing at an incredible rate. Due to depth and scope, science is becoming less and less accessible to the lay-person.  Are we approaching a point where science, to the average Joe, is essentially magic?

Our current understanding of physics and biology remove much of the “magic” behind the activities that we observe in the world.  Just a few hundred years ago people thought the sun god was angry because it was raining.  Now we just understand that moisture evaporates and condenses in the sky.  When the condensation gathers it becomes too heavy for the air to support it against gravity.  The condensation succumbs to gravity and it falls.  Rain.

We read articles in magazines such as Nature, Science or Mathematics and see results of studies that are so in depth, convoluted and specific that it almost seems like magic.  Is it true that the average Joe thinks of the work being done a the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) as magic?  I doubt anyone thinks that magic is actually occurring.  Fundamentally speaking, however, do they really experience any less awe than if one were to witness magic?

My position is that there is a fundamental difference between the confusion that occurs by the average Joe due to these scientific studies done at LHC and the confusion felt by the aborigines when they saw rain fall.  It really comes down to the burden of knowledge.  The average Joe (even the below-average Joe) recognizes that this scientific study was done by educated people.  Furthermore, he knows that there are Universities where these educated people educated themselves.  Whether Joe realizes it or not, every single one of these studies has been peer reviewed, documented and supported by physical evidence.

Aborigine Guy observes the rainfall and must rely on the stories from his ancestors as to why it is occurring.  There is no peer review being made – at least not at the rigor we require today.  There is no documentation for a third party to repeat any tests to conclude the same result.  There is no physical evidence to support their beliefs, claims or opinions.  It really is grounded completely in faith.

Joe may see the results of these tests and decide to put his faith in the scientists claim that XYZ occurred at LHC.  The fundamental difference is that the path for complete knowledge, understanding and replication rests on Joe’s ambition to find out for himself.  He simply needs to educate himself to the level of the scientist in order to reproduce these claims – and he knows this.

Once an observer understands the method by which the magician is pulling the rabbit out of the hat he realizes it’s no longer magic but rather an illusion or entertainment.  The ultimate difference in Joe vs. Aborigine Guy is that Joe knows how to solve the problem – it’s just a matter of not being lazy.

Now, we must address the overwhelming amount of scientific research that is occurring.  Clearly it is impossible for one Joe to master every facet of science.  However, knowing the path one needs to take in order to understand what is needed to reproduce any one of these results is sufficient to show that if one were so inclined to do so it could be done for all of them.  A feat that would be truly noteworthy.  This really comes down to a simple inductive proof.  If one can show it’s true for “the first case” (that is, choose a scientific study to reproduce), “the Nth case” (choose any other scientific study to reproduce) and show that “the Nth case” implies the “the (N+1)th case” then it can be shown true for all cases.

It’s a bit of a stretch to try and use induction for an argument like this because clearly my claim can’t realistically be proven.  All I’m basically saying is that if the scientific study holds any merit whatsoever then it must be completely reproducible by anyone who knows what to do.  Since the “steps” one needs to take to reproduce the experiment are fully documented (they have to be in order to get funding) clearly the information is there for anyone.  The genius comes in figuring it out first.  :)

Proper Comparison

September 29th, 2009

apple-and-orangeThe other day I was having a discussion regarding the merits of a movie.  This discussion quickly turned into a friendly debate.  Upon the conclusion of this debate I realized a very fundamental assumption had been made by both parties.  It’s almost always the case that when two people disagree it’s because of fundamental differences – or because one, if not both, of the debaters don’t understand modal logic.  I digress.

The debate was about the movie 12 Angry Men.  In case you haven’t seen it I’ll give you a very brief overview of the film.  The entire movie takes place in the deliberation room of a court house.  Twelve jurors are discussing the outcome of a murder trial.  A boy is being charged with killing his father and the men need to decide if there is any reasonable doubt as to whether he did it.

If you followed the link above you may notice that this film is rated as a “Top 10″ according to IMDB ratings.  This is where the debate begun.  These ratings are 100% opinion driven.  So, if someone is of the opinion that this movie is the greatest ever then they will rate it a 10 and, likewise, if they hated it they will rate it a 1.  A user needs no justification as to why they gave it a rating.  Plain and simple.

My argument is that his movie is not a very high quality film and does not deserve to be ranked so high.  My opposition disagreed.  So, I started analyzing why I didn’t feel this movie deserved the rating it received.  After a bit of contemplation I realized that my reasoning wasn’t even subjective…I had actually created objective measures to why the film shouldn’t be in the top 10 – or probably even the top 100.  Let’s look at some key elements that make a film.

First, there is the story.  This is obvious, you need to have some story that the movie will tell in order for the viewer to be interested.  In this sense I found 12 Angry Men to be top-notch.  This story is complete, convincing, interesting, absorbing and thought provoking.  I can’t speak any higher of any other story I’ve heard.  It’s definitely “up there” when considering how great the story is.  Is there anything more to a movie than the story?  Of course there is.  If it were just the story alone it would be a novel and nothing more.  Story:  10/10

When critiquing a film you need to consider not only the story but the acting, editing, sound quality, video quality, directing, cinematography, screenplay and several other very necessary nuances of film.  It is in this sense that I found 12 Angry Men to fall short.

The acting left a great deal to be desired.  Is this subjective?  Well, yes and no.  There are schools of acting where proper technique are taught.  There is a method to acting and certain rules need to be followed in order to properly portray a character.  I have personal experience with such a school and attended one when I was younger.  We attended courses on how to enunciate correctly, how to breathe properly, how to move your mouth while speaking, how to portray eye contact with your acting partner etc, etc, etc.  There was a plethora of technique that we learned in order to make a performance more believable.  So, it was by this objective measure I decided the acting fell short.  Many of the arguments were unconvincing.  Ultimately, as a viewer, I need to be convinced.  If I can’t be convinced of the character I’m watching then clearly the actor isn’t doing his job right.  (one could also blame the director – it’s sometimes tough to distinguish who is at fault)  Acting: 3/10

Now, let’s look at the cinematography.  Great cinematography can add to the movie by telling pieces of the story that words can’t – or shouldn’t.  Too many close-ups on a person’s face and not using proper use of panning takes so much away from the story.  Sure I got to see the reaction of that one person but what about the 5 other people next to him?  If the director wants the audience to catch something he should leave it up to the audience to catch it.  You see what I’m saying?  Don’t spoon feed us reactions, emotions and conclusions.  Let the audience come to those conclusions on their own.  Let us decide which emotions to feel.  Let reactions follow from actions.  Cinematography: 3/10

When analyzing sound and video I ask myself a few simple questions:  Does it sound real?  Do I feel like I’m sitting there with them?  etc.  So, when I hear a great deal of ‘echo’ in prop movement and speech I don’t feel like I’m there with them.  It feels distant.  When a chairs is moved and there is a hollow sound I don’t feel like I’m there with them.  There are several elements of this in 12 Angry Men.  Too often I felt like I was watching this from outside of a window.  Editing: 4/10

I rated this film as 6/10 after judging it on several different criteria.  The debate engaged with the rebuttal:  “For it’s time it was ground breaking.  The acting was amazing.  The editing was cutting edge.”  etc.  Well, this made me realize that we are judging the film on two different criteria.  Let’s look at an analogy to see how ridiculous his argument is.

Let’s say I want to compare a 1955 Bel Air Coupe with a 2009 Infiniti G37 Coupe.  Which is the superior automobile?  To answer this question one would go about analyzing the facts about the automobiles, measures by which we define a quality automobile and then draw conclusions.  So, we define a good automobile by safety, longevity, fuel economy, reliability etc.  When we look at these measures it’s very clear that the G37 is superior to the Bel Air.  It’s not a matter of opinion.  It’s a clear cut case due to the technology of the current time far exceeds 1955.  In 50 years the 2059 Bob Loblah XT 2000 is going to be far superior to the Infiniti G37.  It’s just the way technology works.

So, keeping this in mind one can’t conclude that 12 Angry Men should be rated so high.  As much as people don’t want to admit it a movie like The Dark Knight, As Good As It Gets or Training Day should all be systematically superior to a movie like 12 Angry Men.  Not because of the story but rather because the technology we currently possess allows for better editing.  We have advanced our filming craft and have better cinematography.  We have advanced our acting craft and even the extras in a film such as Training Day are often more convincing than support characters (or even lead characters) in older films.  It doesn’t take away from the older films – it just adds to the recent ones.

Remember, the story isn’t the entirety of a film.  Any one of several aspects to film can ruin a movie.  A movie with a great story and terrible acting can make a sub-par film.  A movie with terrific acting and terrible editing can ruin the film.  It takes a mastering of all these elements to create a truly terrific film.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments?

A Rose By Any Other Name…

September 15th, 2009

roseI’ve got another fun philosophical question for you.  This one has to do with where meaning lies.  Several months ago I posed this question to some co-workers.  They, of course, stated their answer very quickly and with little deliberation.  Upon offering suggestions of an alternative conclusion they flew off the handle claiming it was a stupid question.  My utter amazement at the ignorance here in the south – even among educated people – is topped by none.  I digress.  Now, to the question.

Suppose there are two worlds in this universe that are very close to identical in every conceivable way.  Let’s say this world and another.  When I say these worlds are identical I mean identical.  That is, they share the exact same history.  They have the same people as this world.  I mean everything is identical.  Think of it as a doppelganger world.  We’ll call our world ‘A’ and the other world ‘B’.  Now, despite all these similarities there is only one difference between these two worlds.  The difference is that water, H2O, on this world is actually another chemical compound on the other.

So, H20, the life sustaining chemical on this planet is another chemical on the other planet.  It tastes the same, looks the same and behaves the same and the only possible distinction between the two is the chemical make-up.  So, on this world water is H2O and on the other world water is O2H.  (Just for the sake of the scenario)

Now, suppose some time in history two Joe’s (Joe-A and Joe-B) make a statement about how thirsty they are and how they need some water.  Let’s say, for the sake of the scenario, that this point in history is prior to any human knowledge of the chemical make-up of water.  (100 B.C. or something)  If the Joe’s make the statement:  I’m thirsty and need some water.  Do they mean the same thing?

The purpose of this scenario is to ask yourself where meaning comes from.  If meaning comes from the mind then clearly they do mean the same thing.  They are both asking for this life-sustaining substance that will quench their thirst and allow them to continue their day without parch.  If meaning is derived outside of the mind then they are not speaking about the same thing.  One is speaking of H2O and the other is speaking of O2H – even if they don’t know it.

So, do they mean the same thing?  Where does meaning lie?  Can the inherent nature of meaning change depending on context?