May 2009

The Awesomeness of Wolfram Alpha
Submitted Monday, May 25, 2009 - 8:19:12 AM by Klaitu

I have to hand it to this Wolfram guy. He has built an amazing thing.

Who's Wolfram? He's a meganerd, and he invented a website that is designed to calculate anything that it knows. Sounds simple, no?

It's power expands once you realize what the thing can do. Sure, it can do basic stuff.. like it can tell you that Special K has been around for 5 years, 8 months and 3 days. It can go a little farther and tell you that the wind speed in Perth Australia was 12 mph on that day.

You can do really cool things like calculate the current position of the ISS, or predict the next time a total solar eclipse will be visible in New Zealand.. but that's not all!

You can put in a chemical formula, and Wolfram will mathematically construct a model of the molecule you just told it about. If the molecule is known, it will tell you what that chemical is.

Oh, and you thought I was stopping there?

You can calculate the life expectancy for someone with your age, and then apply that to your birthdate and get the statistical time of your own demise!

You can express 1 googol micrometers in light years and discover that this is almost double the size of the known universe!

What? You want it do do something useful, too?

You can calculate the next time your birthday falls on a Saturday (and calculate the duration between now and then).

Oh, and did I mention it does math, too? If there is a formula to figure out something, Wolfram knows what it is. I mean, did you know that a can of Sunkist contains 795.1 kilojoules of chemical energy? I DIDN'T! That's 3 times the kinetic energy of a car at highway speeds.

No wonder I like Sunkist so much!

You can put in an IP address and identify the class and network. You can put in a web address and determine the owner and pageviews.

You can calculate the amount of gravity your body would produce while floating in space, and then compare that to various satellites!

You can calculate the amount of money you'll earn in a year, the amount of calories you'll burn doing any given exercise.. the entire nutritional value of a meal. the life expectancy of a 52 year old smoker in China...

You can type in a genetic sequence and the thing will construct a mathematical model of the genome you just punched in!

It's freaking awesome.

Go try it out! http://wolframalpha.com

Leisure Suit Larry 3
Submitted Monday, May 25, 2009 - 1:57:13 AM by Klaitu

Another retro game that I've been checking out: Leisure Suit Larry 3: Passionate Patti in Pursuit of the Pulsating Pectorals.

It seems odd to go from a high-brow masterpiece like LOOM and jump into the world of the infamous Leisure Suit Larry, but there you go.

Leisure Suit Larry 3 was another game that I originally beat in ages past, but one that I had not had the opportunity to replay for quite some time. I found that I remembered a suprising amount of the solutions in the game after all this time.

If you've been living under a rock (or you are some punk whippersnapper born in the 90's or later) you may not be aware that Leisure Suit Larry is a balding, middle aged computer programmer who just wants some companionship. Most of his games are about Larry trying to score with as many women as possible (but rarely does he score with anyone except the final woman of the game).

LSL 3 finds Larry on Nontoonyt island, having been divorced by his wife (who was the final woman in Leisure Suit Larry 2). Larry is depressed, until he realizes that once again he is single, and he loses his don ho garb and puts on his leisure suit, ready to face the world.

This particular game follows the "see woman, do woman" pattern that would become frequent in later games. The story of the game is sort of disjointed, there is no overarching plot other than trying to figure out what a woman wants, give it to her, and then get a little smooch time with her.

The final woman in this game is, of course, Passionate Patti who is the female version of Leisure Suit Larry. (she's even the one on the boxart) this game is only one of two Larry games where you play as a character other than Larry himself, and that other character is Patti.

The real charm of this game, and the Larry series in general, is the humor. The game is actually quite funny, and now that I'm older than 13, I can actually get the jokes! Some of the puzzles made a lot more sense this time around as well.. well, about as much sense as creating a slingshot with a bra and two coconuts so that you can kill a wild bore can make sense.

If you can find a copy of it, give it a play through. I think you'll get a few laughs out of it. It took me about 2 hours to get through it.

Overall Score: 7 of 10

Unfortunately, Larry is not available on abandonia, as Activision-Blizzard owns the rights to Sierra titles now, and they do protect their copyright claims.

LOOM
Submitted Monday, May 25, 2009 - 1:20:49 AM by Klaitu

For the past couple of weeks, I've been doing it up retro. I've just finished my CCNA courses and I decided that instead of the grind of LOTRO, or the hardcore action of Eve that I would sit back, relax, and try out some of those gems of yesteryear that everyone forgets about.

The first game I chose was Lucasarts classic adventure game LOOM. I Originally beat this game way back in 1991, but I didn't have a sound card back then.. and for LOOM, the quality of the sound makes a BIG difference.

LOOM is a straight-up, hardcore fantasy title, but it's not an RPG. You play as Bobbin Threadbare, an outcast membef of the Weaver's Guild. Each guild in the world of LOOM has it's own rules. One of the rules of the weaver's guild is that only family members can be members. The rule is partially to protect the Great Loom, which is a giant supernatural device that can weave magic.

Unfortunately, the weavers numbers have been dwindling over time, and they are having problems reproducing. Some years before the game starts, one of the weavers places a grey thread into the Great Loom, which unexpectedly creates a baby, who grows up to be Bobbin Threadbare.

The gameplay is both a blessing and a curse to the game. It's your standard adventure fare, except all the puzzles are musical in nature. As with all Lucasfilm and Lucasarts games, there is absolutely no way to die. You just get stuck, get bored, and get frustrated. The "no death" rule that Lucasarts banked on during the early 90's really kills any peril that is supposedly present in LOOM's story.

However, there are few games that have ever been made which could potentially qualify as "art". It seems pretentious to call games art, but if there are games that deserve it, LOOM is one of them. The game is not only graphically beautiful, but also has an amazing soundtrack (despite being made 19 years ago!)

Here, check out this short sample of the game, and you'll see what I mean:

The Evolution of Evolution
Submitted Sunday, May 24, 2009 - 3:56:39 PM by Klaitu

Suprisingly, I've never written about Evolutionism vs Creationism here on Special K. It's probably because the origins of life on Earth are not particularly a mystery to me, but you all know how I am about these things.

It's summer again, and apparently it's time to debate the whole "teach creationism in schools" thing.. again.. for the zillionth time.

When I was a kid, creationism was not taught in public schools, and I went to public schools until the 8th grade.

School was not my only source of education. I learned things from 4 primary places: 1. My Family 2. My Church 3. School and 4. Personal experiences / self study.

I believe that evolution, though controversial, should be taught in schools, because it's a scientific discipline, and scientific disciplines are generally not taught by family or church. self study is possible, but I would not rely on that if I were planning a system to educate kids.

However, when I went to school, and I was taught about evolution, it was taught incorrectly. Evolution was taught as scientific fact, and not a prevailing scientific theory.

I don't believe that creationism should be taught in schools, because it is not derived from scientific processes. Creationism is fully a matter of faith, and matters of faith are not generally taught in school, since they can vary wildly from one religion to the next.

Are some of you shocked by these statements? I've recently been called a "religious extremist", though I suspect my views are quite tolerant, particularly among other Oklahomans.

So, what do I believe about Creationism vs Evolution?

Whenever I get into this debate with someone, I've noticed that not everyone has the same idea of what evolution actually is. You can talk with 10 different people and get 10 different answers about what it is.. and perhaps this is another reason why it needs to be taught in schools.

Today, right now, Evolutionism is the study of the change in genes from one generation of an organism to the next. I don't think anyone has a problem with this kind of evolution, since it is readily apparent that genes change from generation to generation.

Then, things get tricky. Over time, the changes in genetic material are cumulative, but prople widely disagree about the effects and time needed to produce any meaningful change. The basic understanding is that life on earth originated from an original species, and that these changes in genetic material from one generation to the next over billions of years has resulted in a wide variety of flora and fauna. This is the core of what most people refer to as evolution, and it is the stepping stone of every argument of "creationism vs evolutionism"

Things are not so cut-and-dry, however.

Evolutionary scientists have labored to disovered just exactly how evolution is supposed to work, and like any society of people, they've come up with about a jillion explainations that they think best fits the available facts. The big one that I'm going to talk about is the process of Speciation.

Speciation is a big fancy word that means "how new species are formed" and there are 2 basic schools of thought here:

The first team is the genetic drift team. They believe that genetic material mutates over time, and that eventually those mutations add up and the resulting organism is a different species than its ancestors. This is the so called "men from monkeys" argument.

The second team is the natural selection team, who believe that change in species is brought about by selective breeding. It's hard to put into a nutshell, so I'll give an example:

A herd of horses lives on the plains of prehistoric Africa. They're horses as you might imagine them, except there are also orange horses. Over time, lions eat most of the orange horses, because they are easier to spot. Fewer orange horses means that there are fewer orange horse babies. The process continues until orange horses are completely eradicated from the gene pool. Future generations of horses will lack the combination of genes neccessary to produce orange offspring.

Of course, there are many scientists who believe that both of these are true, because the two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

Here's what I believe:

I am a creationist.
I don't believe that life on earth shares a common biological ancestor, rather it shares a common designer.
I believe that evolution exists.
I believe that evolution is not well understood.
I believe that evolution was designed as a natural biological process.
I don't believe that genetic drift creates new complex species.
I believe natural selection is a much larger influence on evolution than genetic drift.

Take, for example, a dog and a cat. You might think, "These animals are very similar. They have fur, 4 limbs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, tails, similar organs.. even their paws are similar!"

An evolutionist concludes, "They must have descended from a common ancestor who had traits of both animals"

A creationist concludes, "these animals were designed by the same person"

What's the difference?

The evolutionist can't prove his hypothesis without locating the common ancestor creature, otherwise known as "the missing link"

The creationist can't prove that the animals were designed without proving the existance of God, a difficult feat without God's assistance.

Ironically, it doesn't matter if you are a creationist or an evolutionist. Both require some degree of faith. Since it is likely that the origins of life will never be fully proven and understood, does it then really matter who believes in what?

I believe that the study of Evolution and the examination of the origins of life are good pursuits for man to pursue. We humans seem to have a constant desire to investigate, to follow clues and solve the mysteries of nature. We want to know how things work. Were we designed this way? Did we evolve this curiousity?

I am a Creationist, but I believe the study of Evolution is the most methodical and reliable method for humans to study the nature of creation.

Whatever you believe, it's important to remember where subjects belong in society. Creationism in schools? Are secular teachers really qualified to answer spiritual questions? Do you really want that?

I think it would be wrong for a high school science teacher to attempt to dismiss creationism as factually incorrect. Not only does it get into some pretty gnarly constitutional rights issues, it's also bad science.

Besides, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Terminator Salvation
Submitted Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 8:58:54 PM by Klaitu

I've heard everything you've heard about this movie.. that it sucks, that it's not very "terminator-y", and that it just doesn't live up to the Terminator franchise.

I went to this movie expecting it to be nothing more than a basic action film that some producer somewhere has screwed up.

I was pleasantly suprised.

The previous Terminator movies all followed a similar plotline: Skynet sends back a Terminator.. The Resistance sends back a protector.

This Terminator completely scraps that idea. In fact, there is no actual Time Travel in this film (Skynet hasn't invented it yet).

Without spoiling the film, the plot involves Skynet attempting to kill Kyle Reese and/or John Connor. The film takes place in 2018. The last time we saw John Connor, it was July 24, 2004. (John Connor sends Kyle Reese back in time in the year 2029)

All the Terminator films are action films, and this one is certainly no exception. It manages to introduce new characters that don't suck, and the action is pretty good. There's one particularly interesting scene involving a crashing helicopter.

The film has been criticized for lack of character development, and it's true, they could have spent more time there (T2 did, after all) but we already know what's going ot happen to John Connor and Kyle Reese, so putting them in peril adds absolutely no excitement to the story.

The only cards the movie can play on you are the "cool robot action" card, and then "nostalgic tie-in" card. This movie plays both of these to their fullest extent.

Aside from the familiar lines of dialogue from previous films, the film did an exceptionally impressive job of bringing a CGI Arnold Swarzenegger to life.. 1984 Arnold Swarzenegger to boot, he even has the bad haircut and everything. He even moves fluidly like he did in the first Terminator film (of course, it probably helps he was being robotical in that performance)

So anyways, to make a long story short:

This isn't as good as T2, but then again, did you really expect it to be?

The movie does not ignore Terminator 3, which a lot of Terminator fans disliked. Katherine Brewster is in the film, and the events of T3 are consistant with Terminator Salvation.

Christian Bale sucks, but thankfully he doesn't do too much in this film except shoot things and yell really loud. People complained about his gruff voice, but it was not nearly as stupid as his idiotic "batman voice". Nick Stahl was a better John Connor.

And speaking of John Connor, I always preferred the thinking-man strategist John Connor to the action hero John Connor. This movie is definately all about action hero John Connor.

The movie is mostly internally consistant with the rest of the franchise, except the film screws up the date of Cyberdyne's purchase by the air force (which happens before Terminator 2)

If I had to rank all the Terminator films in order, Terminator Salvation would be my least favorite Terminator film, but it's not terrible. If you liked the previous Terminator films, you won't be disappointed.

Overall Score: 7 of 10

This One's For My Mom
Submitted Saturday, May 23, 2009 - 4:29:50 AM by Klaitu

She doesn't "get" this whole internet thing, but this is a photoshop that she may appreciate..

Those Wacky Pirates
Submitted Friday, May 22, 2009 - 5:06:58 PM by Klaitu

Remember a short time ago, when those somali pirates tried to capture an American container ship and failed miserably?

Oh, they're at it again.

The first frantic distress call reached HMCS Winnipeg soon after the captain of a cargo ship spotted a speed boat closing fast, the CBC's David Common reported from aboard the Canadian navy's multi-role patrol frigate.

Within a minute of the call, the pirates opened fire on the ship with rocket-propelled grenades.

HMCS Winnipeg, which is participating in a NATO counter-piracy operation, went to full speed and dispatched its armed Sea King helicopter to the scene about 100 kilometres away.

"This is clearly an act of piracy if the merchantmen said they saw rocket-propelled grenades fired at them," the ship's captain, Cmdr. Craig Baines, told CBC News.

The pirate boat turned away from the cargo ship and moved toward an American container vessel, whose captain stayed in constant contact with the Canadian sailors.

An Italian warship that was closer to the American vessel also launched its helicopter, which teamed up with the Sea King to stop the pirate vessel.

The pirates gave up and threw their weapons in the water just before the Italians boarded their vessel — which pirates often do when confronted, Common said.

Taken
Submitted Sunday, May 17, 2009 - 9:46:25 PM by Klaitu

Liam Neeson is a retired CIA agent who loves his daughter. While his daughter is in france, she is kidnapped by Albanians who specialize in women trafficking.

The rest of the movie is Liam Neeson beating the everloving crap out of everyone who could possibly be connected to it.

Most movies like this have the hero get beat down. You've seen it before in movies like the Bourne series.. but in this movie, there's none of that garbage. Liam Neeson obviously outclasses everyone he fights. People point guns at him, and he just ninjas the guns right out of their hands.

There's only one guy who even gets a shot off before getting taken down.

You're not gonna watch this movie for the plot, but it IS very good in the action department. You don't want to get in the way of Liam Neeson. There is no escape from him.

It's like he's playing Chuck Norris.

Overall Score: 8 of 10

Star Trek Blu-Ray release, Part 2
Submitted Friday, May 15, 2009 - 11:45:01 PM by Klaitu

Here's part 2!

Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier

The often maligned Star Trek 5 holds up pretty well on blu-ray. The crisp, clear format doesn't help make it any better, but at least you can enjoy the soundtrack in 7.1 audio mix.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country

Star Trek 6 appears to have benefitted the most from blu-ray. The movie looks a LOT sharper. This is the best quality version of the film to ever be released.

There are exactly 3 shots that don't stand up to blu-ray, and they all involve the camera getting too close to the Enterprise's computer displays. Anyone alive during the 90's will recognize the little lines apparent in any image being played by a VCR.

This version of the film is the Theatrical release, which does not include Operation: Retrieve or Colonel West's disguise. An unfortunate choice, but as this is about 3 minutes of content all together, you can't really complain too much.

The Captain's Summit

The collection includes a bonus disc that contains a roundtable discussion between William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Patrick Stewart, and Jonathan Frakes.

It is completely and totally hilariously awesome.

Star Trek Blu-Ray release, Part 1
Submitted Friday, May 15, 2009 - 4:24:57 PM by Klaitu

Finally, Paramount has gotten around to releasing the original 6 Star Trek movies in High Definition on Blu Ray.

The collection does some unique things, the design of the menus and so forth on the actual disc mimic the packaging of the DVD set, and aren't specific to any particular movie. Each individual disc has a sort of artsy quality to it. The movie posters and so forth were not used in the promotional materials for the discs.

Each disc contains an odd assortment of behind-the-scenes material available on the DVD collection, as well as a never-before-heard commentary track. They also feature a "Starfleet Academy Science briefing" which is not only hilariously laughable, but is also inaccurate. The Trailers for each movie are also included, and are in HD.. not that it helped them out much.

I haven't been able to watch them all (it's almost 12 hours of just movies, double for commentary, and then another 8 hours of special features) So this is part 1!

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

Earlier this decade, Robert Wise remastered The Motion Picture and finished certain scenes that were never completed in the original theatrical release. This was included on the Special Edition collection of the DVD. Unfortunately, when he did these new effects, they didn't make them in HD, or composite them onto film, so it was impossible to put the remastered version on Blu-Ray.

The version that appears on the disc is the original, theatrical release of the film, and with the exception of the "fixed" Vulcan, I'm okay with that.

High Definition turned out to be a blessing and a curse for The Motion Picture. Yeah, it looks sharp, and the colors are amazing. The 7.1 surround mix is perfect. Unfortunately, with most of the effects shots you can see the matte lines around the models. This is particularly apparent when the Klingon cruisers approach V'Ger, and when the Travel Pod crosses over the Enterprise.

The Blu Ray is so sharp that you can make out the individual layer plates in some of the effects scenes. It's interesting to see "behind the curtains" on how these effects were made, but it absolutely destroys any suspension of disbelief.

For what it is, you may as well stick with the DVD edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. It has the extended scenes, and the effects work is not so noticeable.

Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan

Wrath of Khan suffers a little bit of the same fate as The Motion Picture. The matte lines on the new effects are much improved and barely noticeable, but the film uses some reused effects from The Motion Picture (mostly the Travel Pod scene)

Another problem that is seriously noticeable is when they composite Terrell and Chekov onto the circle viewscreen on Regula 1. The composite is absolutely ridiculous looking. (it never looked particularly good in any of the other versions)

Unfortunately, Wrath of Khan also suffers from bad color correction. The film is shifted into the blue end of the spectrum. As a result, the uniforms are all Tomato orange, and the phasers are almost entirely white. The mutara nebula looks flat. The picture is sharp, and the sound mix is great.. but the lack of reds is really inexcusable. I can't believe that this mix made it past Quality Assurance.

I know, I know, it sounds nerdy to complain about the color balance.. but it's really off.

DVD Release


Rlu Ray Release

Weather Rage
Submitted Thursday, May 14, 2009 - 3:36:41 AM by Klaitu

A funny thing happened tonight.. a hilarious thing, really.

You know how the LOST season finale was tonight, and how it had been hyped for ages, and how it was pretty much going to be the highest rated thing on TV?

The last third of LOST was blocked in favor of showing live storm coverage.

Now, I'm not a LOST fan, but I can feel their pain, because how many times has this garbage happened to me? Hundreds of times! There are few things that get my blood boiling like a weatherman appearing to replace a TV program that I am invested in.

You have to understand, I live in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is in the middle of several climate regions, so we get all the trash weather from various different areas. Oklahoma averages 54 Tornadoes a year. Yes, 54. That's over one per week.

Scientists in Oklahoma are at the forefront of weather prediction technology. Our local TV station radars are more powerful than the ones that are owned by the federal government. They can tell you where a tornado is within 12 feet.

Nobody who has lived in Oklahoma for very long has any regard whatsoever for Tornadoes. Lots of people outside the state view them as scary or "natural disasters", but the truth about Tornadoes is that 99% of them are completely worthless, and if you are really lucky they might blow the plastic part of a McDonald's sign off. You can stand in the middle of a tornado and go "wow, that was pretty windy" and never even realize you just got tornadoed.

Because there are so many people with this irrational tornado fear, the local news stations are absolutely crazy about pre-empting their normal broadcasts. If you hear thunder, feel rain, or see what could possibly be construed as a rain cloud, and you are watching NBC, ABC, or CBS.. you WILL hear about it. It doesn't matter if there is any chance of tornado or not. If weather is happening, you might as well forget about watching something on any of those channels.

Such was the case tonight. LOST viewers got to watch as the "Channel 5 weather team" (the most incompetant weather team of the 3) searched desperately for Tornadoes.

Here's how it goes on all 3 channels:

Weatherman: We've got some wind shear here on the radar, and that could mean tornadoes. We've got our (insert publicity name) storm chasers out there tracking the storm, let's go talk to them now! Storm Chaser 1, what do you have?

Storm Chaser 1: Well, I'm out in the boonies where there are no houses and absolutely nothing to destroy. I see some rain clouds with no tornadoes!

Weatherman: Okay, what about you Storm Chaser 2?

Storm Chaser 2: I'm over at 973rd street and Nowhere street, and I see some rain clouds.. and the wind is blowing, so there might be a tornado around here somewhere, but I don't see one!

Weatherman: (after going through Storm Chaser's 3-9) We've got a reporter on the scene, Amy McGee is at the gas station across from the TV studio, Amy?

Amy McGee: I'm here at the Gas Station next to the TV studio, and as you can see from the leaves on the trees, and the sign, the wind is blowing here. You know, if this wind gets a lot stronger, some of those limbs might break break off.. and some damage might happen. Back to you!

Weatherman: Let's look at the Radartron 9000, Oklahoma's finest 3d HD super duber weather radar. As you can see, we have a lot of rain in the area, and there's some wind. These conditions are perfect for creating Tornadoes. Our weather radar can predict the probability of tornadoes, so let's take a look at some of these storm fronts!

(The weatherman clicks on various storm cells, all of which report a less than 1% chance of producing a tornado)

Weatherman: It looks like we have some potentially dangerous storm cells that aren't tornadoes right now, but there's a chance they could produce a tornado in the future. Let's check in with our Storm Chasers!

Storm Chaser 1: Yeah, I've moved slightly and it's raining slightly more now. The rain droplets seem bigger. I feel like there could be a Tornado at any second!

Weatherman: This is a good time to remind you about Tornado precautions! Make sure you go into your storm cellar or the center of your house when the tornado hits!

Trek Gross
Submitted Tuesday, May 12, 2009 - 1:12:08 AM by Klaitu

The opening weekend tally for J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" was substantially higher than initial estimates. The Paramount Pictures release grossed $79.2 million over the three day period in 3,849 locations, almost $3 million higher than initial estimates thanks to strong attendance on Mother's Day. Initially, the well-reviewed adventure was expected to bring in $18.3 million on Sunday, but ended up grossing $21 million. Better than expected family attendance was credited with the upsurge.

Klaitu vs the GPU
Submitted Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 9:08:48 PM by Klaitu

Once upon a time, I bought the wonderful GeForce 8800 GTX. It was a beast of a video card, the first Directx 10 card, too.

Earlier today, the thing conked out on me. It would start inverting the color of random pixels. I though maybe it had something to do with Windows 7, or with the drivers, but it didn't. The problems were happening before windows booted up.

As it turns out, a tiny bit of the memory on my 8800 was screwed up, and it was causing all sorts of problems. How do you solve such an issue?

You rub some money on it. I bought a new GeForce 295 GTX, and my poor, poor expensive 8800 GTX now sits by the wayside, probably never to be used again.

Nerd Fight!
Submitted Saturday, May 9, 2009 - 1:19:55 PM by Klaitu

Some of my fellow nerds have taken to attacking the portrayal of the characters in the new Star Trek movie, and so I mush unleash my full nerd fury and debunk these ridiculous claims!

Again, SPOILER ALERT.

1. James T Kirk

Against: Kirk is too egotistical, and that stunt with the Corvette is ridiculous.

My Argument: Kirk is egotistical in this movie, but Kirk has always been a bit egotistical. The difference is that in the other series, he has always had the skills to back up his ego. In this movie, he's coming from nowhere.

As for the Corvette, Kirk is also a bit of a thrillseeker. He's always going on landing parties, when he could just as easily delegate someone to do that. In Generations, he decides to leave the Nexus because there is no thrill in jumping his horse over a ravine. The Corvette may have been a little extreme, but it was not out of character.

2. Spock

Against: Spock is too emotional. Spock Prime is too emotional.

My Argument: It's true, Spock is more emotional here than he usually is, partially because the story depends upon it. Spock always has emotions, he just suppresses them. When he's a kid, he holds on until the bullies insult his mother, then he loses it.

When he grows up, he holds his emotions well until his mother dies and his entire planet is destroyed. If anything could break Spock's icy cool logical shell, it would probably be that.

Spock Prime is another matter. He's 136 years old the last time we see him in TNG, and since the Romulan Star still exists in Nemesis, we can safely assume he is over 147 years old. In Star Trek 6 (when he is only 61) he is aware that "Logic is only the beginning of wisdom, not the end". After Star Trek 6, the Spock character becomes much more like Yoda than a walking computer bank. Spock Prime is correctly played in the movie.

4. Bones McCoy

Nobody complains about the portrayal of Bones, and it's just as well, because he was played perfectly.

5. Sulu

There aren't many complaints about Sulu, other than him forgetting to "pop the clutch".

6. Chekov

Against: Chekov's accent is too heavy, his duties aboard the Enterprise are unclear.

My argument: Watch TOS again. Chekov has a ridiculous accent when he is young. He claims that Russians invented everything. Chekov is the Navigator of the Enterprise, he's sitting at the Navigation console. He also seems to be the acting science officer.

I have no problems with this, because Chekov probably has the most cross training of anyone else. He has been seen at Conn, Weapons Control, Science, and Communications. He was First Officer on the Reliant and Acting Captain of the Enterprise. Chekov really gets around! I can accept his multiple roles as part of his character because of that.

7. Scotty

Against: Scotty is too manic, and too scottish.

The man wears a kilt to Spock's funeral. How can you get more scottish than that? As for his sort of manic portrayal, this Scotty was trapped on Delta Vega for quite some time, and Scotty was a little manic to begin with. He's also younger than we have ever seen him.

8. Uhura

Against: Uhura is completely unlike the real Uhura. Also, WTF is up with her and Spock?

My argument: What did Uhura do originally. She sat at the communications station. She would occasionally go on a landing party, or take over for Chekov. In Star Trek 1 and 2 she just sits there. In Star Trek 3 she operates a transporter. In Star Trek 4 she helps Chekov get high energy photons. In Star Trek 5 she flies a shuttlecraft and sings. In Star Trek 6 she can't speak Klingon.

The new Uhura is obviously an attempt to give Uhura something to do other than sit around. In fact, she doesn't sit around at all, I have no idea where the Communications panel is on the new Enterprise bridge, because I can't remember her ever sitting there.

Her resistance to Kirk, her arguing with Spock about her test scores, her relationship with her roommate, and her confidence in her own abilities are unlike the original Uhura, and in my opinion are a huge improvement. The fact that new Uhura can speak 3 dialects of Romulan is also pretty impressive.

Of all the characters, Uhura got the least development of anyone. Even Sulu eventually got a first name, but Uhura never did. So yeah, she's different than the original, but in a good way.

As for Uhura and Spock, I am not a big fan of this relationship either, but it's not out of left field. You'll recall that Jadzia Dax also preferred Spock over Kirk. It's certainly better than Uhura/Scotty was.

Star Trek Analysis
Submitted Friday, May 8, 2009 - 1:46:44 PM by Klaitu

This article will contain MASSIVE spoilers for the Star Trek 2009 movie. IF you don't want to spoil it, just pretend like this article doesn't exist!

Weak Plot Points:

Red Matter. What is it? How does it work? Where does it come from? They might as well have called it "Red stuff" or "Plot Device".

A supernova doesn't just sneak up on you, it takes billions of years to happen. The Romulans are as scientifically advanced as the Federation. How could they have not been prepared to evacuate Romulus? Why is there anyone at all left on Romulus? They have centuries and centuries to evacuate the place.

Why is Nero's "mining ship" so heavily armed?

Why is Uhura in the middle of Iowa in a bar? She's from the African Confederation. Don't they have a direct flight?

Why is McCoy in the middle of Iowa? Is it some kind of Starfleet travel hub?

Spock launches Kirk from an escape pod? Doesn't this Enterprise have a brig? Wouldn't you put a mutineer in the brig and start some sort of legal proceeding against him, instead of just ejecting him in an escape pod? Sure, you can make the argument that Spock is emotional, but you would think his emotions would be satisfied by Kirk being put through a court martial.

Technical problems aside, getting Kirk and Scotty aboard the Enterprise was a huge plot device.

The entire "let's chase Scotty through the water tubes" sequence was pretty lame. It's a good thing the water tubes have a release valve that opens.. in the middle of the ceiling.

You've got the entire Star Trek universe to choose aliens from, and you decide to make that Oompa Loopma guy into a new one? Why?

The Kelvin sure can hold a lot of shuttles.

Christopher Pike is Captain of the Enterprise, but where are the rest of his old crew? Where's Number One? Where's that redheaded helmswoman?

Inconsistant with Star Trek Canon:

The Alternate Universe is created when Nero's ship goes back in time and kills Kirk's dad. The USS Kelvin, and everything that exists before Nero's ship arrives should be consistant with Star Trek Canon, but it isn't. The Kelvin is clearly part of the new "future retro" style used in the rest of the movie.

Vulcan's sky is the wrong color. It's supposed to be more red.

You can't beam onto a warping target from a stationary object. You can't even do that in Spock's era. Scotty could never have invented anything to allow this because it can't happen.

Maximum Transporter range is 40,000km. This is something explicitly stated by Emory Erickson, the inventor of the Transporter. The Transporter range is defined by the laws of subspace physics, which should not change just because Kirk's dad died. Additionally, Emory Erickson existed before Nero changed the timeline, so the transporters in use in the movie would have been of his design. In the movie, they beam from Titan (a moon of saturn) to Earth Orbit. Way farther than 40,000km.

Things people think are Inconsistant, but aren't:

Kirk was born on March 22, 2233 in Iowa. He was not born in space, though his birth seems to be in progress as the movie starts. This could perhaps be explained by the stress of the situation created by Nero.

The film takes place in 2258. The Enterprise should have already been in service for 13 years at this point, as it was built in 2245 and first commanded by Robert April. It's possible that this could be explained by alternate events in the timeline.

The Enterprise is being constructed in Iowa. The original Enterprise was constructed in San Francisco. This could also be explained by alternate timeline.

The Klingons in the Kobayashi Maru scenario have cloaking devices, even though Starfleet should be unfamiliar with cloaking devices until at least 2266. This could be explained by alternate timeline.

You can see Delta Vega from Vulcan, and vice versa. This isn't inconsistant, we have little or no data about the Vulcan star system. Spock does eject Kirk before the Enterprise goes to warp, so wherever Kirk lands has to be in the Vulcan star system.

Uhura orders a Cardassian drink at the Iowa Bar. Starfleet should not yet have contact with Cardassia. This could be explained by alternate universe.

Cardassian drinks are almost universally considered to be completely nasty by other species. We don't know the ingredients of Uhura's drink, so there is no issue here.

George S. Kirk is Kirk's brother, not Kirk's dad. True, but it's possible that Kirk's older brother was named after his father, so they both share the same name. This would perhaps explain why "George Samuel Kirk" is referred to as "Sam". (Coincidentally, George S. Kirk is the only other character that William Shatner ever played on Star Trek)

Things you may not have noticed:

Jonathan Archer was born in the year 2112. Montgomery Scott was born in the year 2222. Archer would have been 110 years old when Scotty was born. Strangely, Archer's extreme age isn't against canon, as Archer dies in the year 2245. However, he was not "Admiral Archer" during this time, he was President of the United Federation of Planets. Beagles don't live nearly as long as humans, so I think we can assume that the beagle in question is not Porthos.

The uniforms for the USS Kelvin are a combination of the "Star Trek Enterprise" era uniforms, and the revamped TOS uniforms.

The third crewmember who does the orbital skydive with Sulu and Kirk is wearing red. The truest example of a redshirt.

The annoying little alien hanging out with Scotty is Deep Roy, the guy who played the Oompa Loompas in the new Willy Wonka movie.

Kirk's mom is named Winona Kirk, but Spock's mom is played by Wynona Rider.

Star Trek 2009
Submitted Thursday, May 7, 2009 - 10:55:06 PM by Klaitu

This will be a spoiler free review.

As an avid Star Trek fan, I was curious and concerned about how the new Star Trek movie would turn out. JJ Abrams is running the franchise now, and his Star Trekkiness was an unknown quantity.

I saw things in the trailer which didn't look like they belonged in a Star Trek film, but trailers are oftentimes out of context, so I let it slide. I tried very hard not to expose myself to spoilers of any kind.

I can tell you that all of my fears were unfounded. This new Star Trek movie isn't just an awesome Star Trek movie, it's just a straight up awesome movie! I'd go to repeat showings of this film even if it had nothing to do with Star Trek.

Among my chief concerns was the movie's attention to Star Trek lore. The uniforms were wrong, the Enterprise was wrong, the technology was all wrong. The movie is set in the Kirk and Spock era, and we've already seen that era in the original series.

This movie takes ideas from the original series, but some are more.. shall we say.. liberal interpretations of the way TOS could have gone.

But.. the movie itself contains an explanation as to why all these things are different from the Star Trek that we all know and love.

I will be the first to admit that these explanations do not hold up under scrutiny by Star Trek fans. If you're a Star Trek purist, you're going to just have to accept the plot excuse they give, and it's not a terrible one by any means.

This sort of "reimagined Star Trek" amazingly is able to stay true to the original spirit of Star Trek without trampling over it's decades of established history. An impressive achievement.

The music is perfect. The effects are done by ILM (they hadn't done a Star Trek movie in ages). The acting blew me away, especially Karl Urban, who plays McCoy.

There is one tiny flaw that slipped through the cracks of the movie involving the way that transporters work, which is completely unaddressed.

Overall Score: 9 of 10

And thank goodness it deserves that 9. It seems Star Trek finally got it's legs back.

I will go so far as to say that this film is at least equal to Star Trek 2, and may even be better than Star Trek 2. Only time can tell.

Awesome Translation, Guys
Submitted Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - 12:52:00 PM by Klaitu

I didn't remember how poorly translated this game was:

The Windows 7 Experience
Submitted Tuesday, May 5, 2009 - 2:49:55 PM by Klaitu

As I type this, I am using the new Release Candidate for Windows 7. I just installed it earlier today, so I don't have a full review, but I can say that the installation process is pretty simple, though it does take some time to complete.

Some of the old features have been changed and revamped, and sometimes it's hard to find settings that have been in the same place since windows 95, but that sort of thing is to be expected.

Stay tuned for more updates!