A note about the DS9 reviews.

I've decided that rather than type up a new review for each season I'll do what I do with my anime reviews and wait until I've completed the entire work before typing up a new review. This is partly a stall because of time and partly because I hate trying to type up these things knowing that I'm missing possibly relevant information. There is no telling when I'll finish the series, but I know my roommate will be pushing to continue watching throughout the coming semester.

DS9 - Season 1 (Characters)

Characters:

In this portion I will focus on the primary cast. Any notable recurring characters will be mentioned in later discussions.

Benjamin Sisko:

The newly installed Commanding officer of DS9, he comes here with mixed feelings, torn between duty and his recollection of the dangers of this life (which cost him his wife during an attack by the Borg-Controlled Jean-Luke Picard). This moment defines much of who Sisko is and the decisions he makes. He is a dedicated and loyal individual. He is usually level headed, but is apt to express aggression more quickly than Picard ever was. Sisko is clever, resourceful and wise for his age, making him the perfect Emissary for the prophets (a title given to him by the Bajoran religious leader when she learned of his contact with the wormhole beings).

I really liked our introduction to Sisko. We have this immediate understanding of his depth and purpose in life. With the loss of his wife in an attack, he redoubled his dedication to his son. I like him, he is generally more intense than Picard usually was, but more under control than Kirk. He is passionate, dedicated and capable of all the duties he has. I enjoy watching him navigate all of the politics and religious issues that arise under his comman. He’s a clever guy and that’s what I like he’s not perfect, but he is doing all he can to do what’s right.

Kira Nerys:

A former soldier in the resistance against the Cardassian Occupation, Kira is the first officer of DS9 (though she is not technically a Federation Officer, but the Bajoran liaison to DS9). She is a quick to anger and slow to logic. She is not a bad person necessarily, but her better judgement is often blinded by prejudices and assumptions gained during her time as a resistance fighter. She is often torn by her loyalty to the Federation and to Bajor, giving her several internal struggles about her past and what her future can be.

I honestly didn’t like her at first. She’s pushy, forceful and arrogant. As her story and past became clearer, I began to understand. She wasn’t just some jerk. Kira was a soldier, who spent her whole life fighting the Cardassians for Bajoran freedom. She has been fighting for so long that she doesn’t know how to stop. With the arrival of the Federation she felt they were just there to replace the Cardassians as the next rulers of Bajor. I love watching her relationship with Sisko mature from being two people with mutually exclusive goals to being united for the betterment of the station and the people of Bajor. Her main purpose on the show is to help us as we learn more and more about the history of Bajor and to represent this race to the viewers.

Odo:

Odo is a changeling. He appears as an approximation of a humanoid but with the lack of eye brows or any definition between his brow and the tip of his nose. He is capable of liquefying and taking on other shapes, a very useful skill as he is also the Security Officer of DS9. Many of his suspicions center around Quark given a long history of distrust (dating back to a time before the series began). He is exceedingly smart, but very dry. Odo has a great deal of trouble understanding traditional humanoid behaviors (since he isn't one), but he is quite capable of drawing connections and executing investigations.

Of the primary cast Odo is my favorite. He serves much of the same purpose as Data does for TNG. He is there to call into question the emotional irrational behaviors of the people around him. I love watching him try to understand why the humanoids behave as they do. The episodes where he is struggling with his identity as the only known being of his kind were some of my favorites. I like his ability to have a singular focus on a task, and watching him unravel the details of a crime on the station can be quite intriguing.

Julian Bashir:

The medical officer on the station, Julian is surprisingly immature for a doctor. He often flirts with Dax (a fruitless effort) and he cracks wise to superiors officers. That said he is an exceptional doctor. He is the go to person for getting an understanding of the new species, strange diseases, and several other physiological anomalies faced by the occupants of DS9. He tends to be overly verbose and sometimes quite condescending (without meaning to be).

Bashir is (more or less) a joke character. He’s the always necessary super-skilled medical officer, but it seems like even in episodes that featured him heavily he was mostly there to lighten the mood. As a character I don’t dislike him, but if he only shows up in the background I’m never really disappointed. He’s clever, and definitely a capable doctor, but other than being the doctor he is rarely shown to be a necessary character.

Jadzia Dax:

She is a trill (a symbiotic being with both a humanoid and worm-like component). Being a trill, she has memories of many previous hosts, including Curzon (who was Sisko's mentor). However Jadzia is a young woman, and as such is very different from the old man, Curzon. She is very logical, rarely allowing her emotions to cloud her judgement. She carries the wisdom of many lifetimes, yet the personality of a youthful woman.

I’m really intrigued with the sort of being Dax is but I don’t always find her as interesting as her species. She is a fairly dry character and her main purpose is to act as a science officer and as a mentor to Sisko and other characters (given her hundreds of years of wisdom). As I said I’m more interested in understanding the nature of the trills than I am with Jadzia specifically, the one episode that really focused on her was mostly good for me because of the discussion of the trills.

Miles O'Brien:

It is fair to say, in some sense, that the Chief Operations Officer, is to the technical what Bashir is to the living. All of the computers, electronics and technology fall under O'Brien's command. He is easily flustered, but very dedicated. He struggles some self-confidence problems, and he is very loyal and can be quite aggressive when he chooses to be.

Okay so Miles is the touch stone for TNG fans coming into this series, but he also serves the role of a well intentioned guy who is always looking to do things the right way. He is loyal to his wife and does all he can to help her feel at home on this station. He is highly respectful of all of his superior officers, though he has been known to cop an attitude with them. I identify most with Miles, because of his tendency to want to find a balance where everyone is happy.

Quark:

A Ferengi and the proprietor of the popular hangout, Quark's (big surprise I know). He is known for his underhanded dealings, which is why Odo tends to come to him first whenever there is a crime. He tends to have some unsavory characters come through the bar, so it's likely that even if he wasn't a part of the crime, he may know something. Quark occasionally show's some decency but he is rather cut-throat

As I said I find the Ferengi very entertaining. I like Quark because he is consistently. You always know that he’s doing things for himself, and the only question much of the time is what exactly is it that he is doing? It’s fun to watch the times when he and Odo get into it. There actually seems to be a sort of adversarial respect between the two. The code by which the Ferengi live is held in high regard by Quark (a Ferengi among Ferengi), and he is often the “moral” leader of the Ferengi on the station. He’s always fun to watch.

DS9 - Season 1 (Introduction and Setting)

This will be my first Season review of any show. I don't plan to be terribly in depth, but I will look at the major characters (and even note some of my favorite minor characters), I'll talk about major plot points and note a few of my favorite moments.

Introduction:

I can't say that I'm a trekky, but I do love, Star Trek. I've often stopped and watched The Next Generation just for fun, but it wasn't until my roommate (Preston Hammitt) encouraged me to watch Deep Space Nine (giving me five seasons to bring home with me) that I was given a chance to really enjoy Gene Rodenberry's universe.

I'm not that well versed in all of the Star Trek lore. I'm new to it, but maybe that will save me from some of the prejudices that I've heard of toward DS9 by some of the purists. Most of it seems to be because, DS9 is different from The Original Series and The Next Generation, because their location is stationary. As a result DS9 has a serial feel to it. Similar issues come up again and again because of this and it offers some depth to the whole show.

I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's get started.

Setting:

In truth I adore this universe. Having only been a passing participant in viewing Star Trek in the past it was awesome how readily available and (essentially) simple things were to understand. Now granted there are incredible levels of depth that have been fostered and developed not only by writers but by the ever loyal fans of the show. Few other universes have this level of ready accessibility (Firefly comes to mind).

In this section I’ll share the basics about the locations and species involved in the show. I will also include my impressions and thoughts.

Locations:

Bajor:
The primary planet of focus in the series. Populated by the Bajorans, a society united by their strong religious faith in wise beings they call the Prophets. Just prior to the beginning of the series Bajor had been freed from Cardassian Occupation. The Bajoran temporary government has enlisted the help of the United Federation of Planets to prevent a Cardassian return, much to the chagrin of some who believe in "Bajor for Bajorans."

We don’t see much of Bajor as far as being on it, most of what I’ll add is found in the Bajorans section.

Deep Space 9:

The Space Station of Deep Space Nine. Previously it was orbiting the planet Bajor and was under Cardassian occupation (as well as the planet Bajor). Newly freed from the Cardassians, the station is now under the primary control of the Federation, while also cooperatively controlled by Bajorans. It is the primary stopping point for all who travel through the wormhole, making it a place of great economic importance to the Bajorans. It is populated by many different species.

It has different feel than other Federation locations I’ve seen, this is because of it’s Cardassian design. It’s an interesting touch visually since, it feels much darker in many parts of the ship than you might detect when watching Next Generation. It really adds something since living in this architecture must be unsettling to all of the people not familiar with it. None of the characters are truly at home here (at least at first).

Wormhole:

The wormhole was discovered in the premiere episode of the series, and is a critical plot point. It is unique because it is stable so there is no fear of collapse. This is true because it is inhabited by a collection of beings (known to the Bajorans as the prophets), who created the wormhole as a dwelling place (the Bajorans believe it to be the fabled Celestial Temple of the Prophets).

Gamma Quadrant:

The area beyond the wormhole, located 67 light years from DS9. In it are countless new life forms. Many exploratory missions are sent there. Trading vessels move in and out. Many episodes focus on new lifeforms that emerge from the wormhole are residents of the Gamma Quadrant.

Including the Wormhole and Gamma Quadrant was a brilliant move. Without it they would have had to abandon the continuous interactions with other societies and races that have made this Universe so appealing to many generations. It cleverly puts this group of characters into the forefront of a very important series of events both politically, economically and socially. This is even more significant when you consider that these characters were originally under the impression that this was a back water station where they would be babysitting a vulnerable Bajor while trying to bring it into the Federation.

Species:

Humans:

The humans seen on the show are usually members of the Federation or else some form of merchant. Generally speaking there are no major differences in their moral code than the modern day.

The humans are meant to act as our anchor. Being that we are humans ourselves, we’ll readily connect with these characters in a sea of other races. It also allows us to see our own ideas and moral systems in effect (these are largely western ideologies). I like the constant contrast of our behavioral systems to other alien ways of behaving and living.

Bajorans:

The race of Bajor. Physically speaking there are few differences between the Bajorans and humans. Most notably they have an area of wrinkled skin on the bone of their nose and specially designed earrings worn on one ear. They are exceedingly religious (putting them at odds with the science focused humans) and hold their faith in the prophets as a very important part of their lives. Their religious leader (the Kai) is a wise being who is elected.

Given that the series is largely dealing with scientific minds (the humans being highly science-focused), it’s interesting to see a highly religious group as a central presence. Their religion saved them in a time of great tribulation for their people, and like many religions they have difficulties agreeing on how they must live. It feels like the

I like that they are not simply unified they are a divided people. Having just become free of the Cardassians, many Bajorans, especially those who fought as part of the resistance movement, feel that bringing in the Federation is simply trading one master for another. These groups (everything from protesters to domestic terrorists) are instead in favor of "Bajor for Bajorans." Other groups are thankful for the Federation presence as it helps the presently weakened Bajor recover without fear of a Cardassian return.

Ferengi:

A race of greedy unscrupulous beings whose first concern is the ever greater acquisition of money. They are short, brown bald creatures with enormous ears, and sharp pointed teeth. There are several Ferengi on DS9, most connected with Quark's bar.

Nothing is more brilliant for comedic relief than a race of beings that are grotesque and obsessed with the accumulation of money. It’s so funny to see what a society with gold-pressed latinum as the most important thing looks like. It also gives a tongue in cheek tease about our own super materialistic ways. These guys are fun.

Cardassians:

Gray-skinned beings with black slick hair and several abnormal bone formations most prominently connections that run from their shoulders to the base of their heads.

Former rulers over the Bajorans, the Cardassians are a ruthless violent race, who committed many atrocities against the Bajorans during their occupation. To say the relationship between Bajorans and Cardassians is tense is an understatement. The issues that exist between the Bajorans and Cardassians is a major portion of the story.

The Cardassians are really interesting. They are domineering and powerful. Cardassians are entirely willing to abuse other races for their own causes (chief most the need for resources and raw materials). They are a race that is presented as the most villainous and heinous race in the area, and they may be, but I like some of the more in depth looks at these characters that show that there are even some among their number who object to the atrocities. I can’t wait to learn more about their history with the Bajorans.

The Prophets/Wormhole Aliens:

The prophets are crystalline beings that live inside of the wormhole, they exist outside of time. To them past present and future are instantaneous, which is made clear as they interact with Benjamin Sisko who tries to convey to them the idea of a linear temporal existence. Though the Federation members see them simply as newly discovered lifeforms, the Bajorans treat them as gods who have often sent crystals filled with divine power to guide the Bajorans.

The Original Series and The Next Generation both put the need for cross-cultural understanding and respect among the races. DS9’s format could have resulted in a shirking of that story thread but instead grew on it. Remaining stationary has allowed for incredible depth in the ongoing story of the Bajorans and Cardassian Occupation. The continued presence of new races from the Gamma quadrant allows for the more traditional Star Trek style.

HU Music Survey #1

Here is the survey I'll be discussing:

http://survey.constantcontact.com/poll/a07e4c3xh09gq1280qk/start.html

Over the past week I've listened to albums by these bands, but before sharing let me clarify a few things:

• I will not let the size of their discography affect my assessment of how good or bad they are.
• Since music is a matter of personal taste that will affect my personal feelings about each band.
  
• I'd only ever heard of two of these artists before (OK Go and Michael) and I'd only really heard one of each of their songs. I won't let that sway my opinion.
• I'm not really going to say which is best. It's very hard for me to render that sort of decision because they are all different genre wise. Instead my rankings will only be meant to indicate the order of preference I have for a show from them at HU.
• I know little to nothing about their stage presence, but I do know that some bands have great music, but are terrible live. I'd actually welcome information about that. I'll even offer amendments and give shout outs for those tips, but for the sake of simplicity I won't change the initial rankings.

With all of that said let's begin:

#5 Christina Perri:

I like her sound, but it maybe because I've heard similar artists. Acoustic semi-angsty woman music isn't bad in and of itself. I can't say that I'd want to hear it in concert though. I remember going to hear Sara Bareilles when she came to Harding. I remember liking her music, but also feeling like I was out of place. Perri's music is quite similar in lyrical content and general style (not saying she's a carbon copy but she's similar enough). This music isn't written for me. It's for other women, mostly for other women who have had their hearts broken. Since I'm not in that category she comes in last.

#4 OK Go

I enjoy their music. It's got an interesting feel in it, it's mostly upbeat and fun, they definitely put together a strong showing in their albums. That said I feel like I'd be disappointed live. There's a lot going on in their songs, and it can be really hard for a band to get that same tight sound form their album when they play it live. Now granted there is a movement toward a simpler approach in their most recent release (last years Of the Blue Colour of the Sky). I just didn't hear anything that made me say, these are the guys I want to hear live. In fact from what I've heard from some who have seen them the live show they put on can be disappointing.

*******NOTE*******

These last three were in close contention I wanted to declare a three way tie. Honestly if I were putting point values to them they'd be within a few decimals of each other. The tipping point is what I see the potential concert being like. But I feel like I should just keep going.

*******NOTE*******

#3 Michael Franti

I was surprised by how much I like Michael Franti. His blend of r&b, rap, and reggae (and a few other styles) really reflect a high musical IQ. He blended old tunes into his own stuff, he has some excellent original stuff. So what put's him in third? He's got a lot to say, and he says it well, but quite frankly it might be a problem for the sensibilities of the audience in front of which he'd be appearing. Personally, I don't mind it, but that coupled with the fact that I don't know how good a concert can be in that genre (especially at HU) and that most people will recognize little else besides, "Say Hey, (I love you)" and probably take offense to a fair share of it, puts this at #3.

#2 The Civil Wars

I'm a simple guy and a simple sound goes a long way with me. The Civil Wars have a simple sound and solid presence musically. I'm always happy to hear a new folk/rock band. Their album Barton Hollow is a well constructed piece and puts their exquisitely simple sound on display beautifully. So why don't they win out? Half of their album is on a playlist I call "Mellow and the Calms" and it's what I play while I'm relaxing or taking a nap. All of their music isn't that way, but a fair share of what I can find is. It's good music, it's soothing, but it can be thought of as a calmer Avett Brothers. I don't want to go to a concert where I am at risk of being overly chilled out so #2 it is.

#1 Foster the People

Somewhere between in the musical galaxy, in the vicinity of The Black Keys you'll find Foster the People. That was what first came to mind as I listened to Torches, but a Black Keys sound knock off they are not. Their music is all their can be energetic, it can be calm, it can be celebratory it can be sad, but it is always good! I recommend this band to anyone looking for a sound all it's own. When I listen to this album a concert scene is what I see. It feels a bit more epic than the Admin, but if their music is any indication they can keep an audience entertained.

So there you are my thoughts on the first collection of artists that have been recommended. I know that the current rankings on the survey don't bode well for my top choice, but that doesn't change the choices.

See you in another life,

-matt

The Numerati by Stephen Baker

So this is the other book I was assigned for my online business class. This one was a very interesting read. Granted it doesn't have much in the way of flashy or gimmicky content, but it makes up for it with legitimately interesting information. Definitely a good read for anyone who is interested in the direction technology is moving.

Introduction

Like Love is the Killer App this was an assigned reading, and admittedly this may never have shown up on my radar otherwise. Like my reading of Sanders' book I was a bit rushed in my reading of The Numerati. I did actually read through the book in a very short period of time, as my sister can tell you it's all I did saturday and sunday of her visit.

It wasn't a hard read, Baker is a business journalist and has been one for over 20 years. He knows how to write a good book as well.

As I said with the other assigned reading, I honestly try not to judge an assigned reading too harshly. At the very least I look for what the professor saw in the book and what they may have wanted me to glean from the book.

Let me give you a few terms worth knowing:

• data mining: The process of gathering (mining) the information (data) of a collection of individuals.
• DNA: as used in the book it describes the basic structure of a person in terms of measurable, and quantifiable units.
• cookies: small (relatively benign) files placed on your computer by the websites you visit
• Noise: pieces of data that skew or disrupt your ability to process your basic data based DNA.

Summary

The book begins with an introduction and a short discussion of a quandary faced by a data compiling firm. Essentially this firm has been gathering millions of pieces of data on people who visit their client sites and trying to understand how and where to place an add for a particular product/service. The question is this: "Why is it that people who read romance novels are the second most likely people to click on a rent-a-car ad?" The first ranked are people who are reading online obituaries, this is a clear enough of correlation since a person who is reading an obituary would probably want to make travel arrangements to get to the funeral they've just read about, but what do you do about those romance novel fans? What they've determined (upon further investigation) is that these people were looking clicking on a particular banner advertising for romantic getaway packages the rent-a-car company was offering. Makes sense now, right?

I share this story because it is part and partial of the entire book. This book discusses the uses and effects of "data mining," on our modern day culture. In particular, Baker focuses on seven groups of people that are affected:

1. Workers
2. Shoppers
3. Voters
4. Bloggers
5. Terrorists
6. Patients
7. Lovers

His discussion looks at the people leading the data-mining in these areas. The algorithm developers, computer programmers, sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists, business executives and visionaries that are pushing these technologies forward. He calls these people (you guessed it) The Numerati.

He discusses how technology will affect how we are viewed by our employers (a system that would rank us similarly to stocks (in terms of value to the company). Heavy observation could lead to a Big Brother style push for efficiency, but it could also be used to foster better employees and create more cohesive work groups.

Any online shopper is familiar with things like the Amazon.com method. Using various cookies they track the items you buy and shop for and attempt to recommend similar products to you. there are firms that do this on a massive scale with thousands of website clients allowing them to plant cookies on the users that it can use to compile information about what links you clicked on what websites you visited, even the path you took from one to another. Baker discusses the possibilities of connecting this data to your person such that a cart at your local super center can connect identify you, and tell you which products you buy often are on sale or even help you develop a shopping list of the things you are most likely to buy.

An interesting discussion happens in this chapter. Of course you'll discuss how do you remove the noise (a 40 year-old woman buying a video game for her son won't respond to future ads for video games), but a better question, how do you get rid of those customers that cost you money? Business lingo calls them Barnacles. These are the people you see buying only on sale items and buying them with coupons to further their savings. They never pay full price, they only buy items that have free shipping offers, and they lose businesses money. These individuals can be tracked as easily as anyone else online, but once tagged as a barnacle they'll bury your most likely purchases in a sea of regular priced items when you use search engines. Interesting to think about.

How do you gather voter data? After all with campaign costs continuously rising, you need to focus your efforts on winnable markets. If your on the far left it won't due you much good to send campaign brochures to that staunchly far right neighborhood. The same goes for phone calls and door knockers. One firm described how they break down people into one of 5 major categories (based on the values they hold most dearly) and then they assess which end of the spectrum they fall on from high dedication to low. They break down individuals who answer their surveys this way then they can extrapolate that information to inform neighborhoods and whole counties. (this is important since political consulting isn't reserved exclusively for the general election).

Obviously, I held some interest in the blogger section. Most of the discussion focuses on exactly how do you break down the very human information into something people will pay for. The answer? Not easily. One group is developing an algorithm that can (sometimes) determine what a blog article is about, what sort of person wrote it (demographically) and what they think (positively or negatively) about the topics included. However, as Baker shows, this is still a rather inaccurate system. Linguists have helped determine how men and women write and how the older and younger writers differ in terms of word choice. Even with that help a man in his upper 30s who is an active skateboarder was identified as a teenager, and a woman who writes aggressively could be identified as a man. The difficulty of syntax is one that computers struggle with for example a sarcastic sentence that is in favor of something was read as a negative statement. Since the system only works by putting in examples of blogs that fit the definitions of the types of blogs they have categories for, they are limited by the human supplied definitions.

The terrorists section focused on the ability to identify terrorists that actually began with casinos developing technology to keep the Danny Ocean and the rest of the team from getting away with anything. It identifies individual crooks and if more crooks arrive it searches it's databases to predict who is the next most like crook. The NORA (non-obvious relationship awareness) system was eventually adopted to monitor the movements of known terrorists and predict what other terrorists to keep an eye on. Other NSA systems look at spending patterns, patterns of association and demographic information to determine which mild-mannered citizen is a future future terrorist. Basically, they are looking for the exceptions to the norm, those factors that separate us (the average citizens) from the potential terrorists. The concern is that the other systems of identification Baker has discussed are allowed to be inaccurate to some degree, because the worst case scenario is that you send a campaign flyer to the wrong door or advertise death metal to a grandma. But the NSA's task involves putting people in jail, treating them as enemy combatants and stripping them of their lively hood (on the basis of what this data tells them). Basically, they are looking for the exceptions to the norm, those factors that separate us (the average citizens) from the potential terrorists. In an increasingly diverse and ever more observable society like ours how do you define the norms, and what about those innocent shop owners who thought they were supporting a charity, but who accidentally funded a terrorist cell?

The patients section was, more or less, a discussion of interesting medical monitoring gadgets. Most of them are meant to gather data over a long period of time. One of the biggest flaws in the medical system is that most of us spend 15 minutes (or less) with our doctor each year, but many conditions (such as parkinson's) are identifiable by long term information. In the case of parkinson's they have developed a floor that detects footsteps (a major sign of parkinson's is decreased stride length). They imagine one day entire houses (they have the prototype) filled with similar sensors in your bed, your floors, chairs, etc. These combined with similar sensors would gather data and if it detects a problem it could alert your doctor. But what does this mean for insurance? will they allow you to BE insured without these devices, will you have a high premium if you live in a house without it? Could your premium spike if the insurance company becomes aware of a condition first. The next task for these monitors is who gets to see the information.

The final chapter focuses on the burgeoning online dating scene. Specifically those who use algorithms to determine compatibility. Anthropologists, sociologists, biochemists and countless others are part of the process of trying to understand compatibility on various levels, and they are the ones recruited by dating websites that opt to use surveys to gather the important data. Another idea was to use cellphones as mini broadcasters of our profile pages. If two people match with similar interests (or whatever compatibility measures you use with the program) are in proximity to one another, then you they will receive one another's personal profile page. It's an interesting thought, I mean if you are already broadcasting your information on the internet for people in Norway to view, why not use that same data to find someone a little closer. Admittedly the idea sounded a bit like those nanopet battlers that alerted you when another was near by (so that you could battle strangers I guess).

The conclusion Baker has is this summed up simply: "Life is Complex." From that launching point he adds. "And yet, bit by bit the Numerati make progress. No, they don't truly know us and they never will. But in each domain, they understand and predict our behavior a bit better today than they did last week." Baker is impressed with the technology, but truly believes that it can never comprehensively understand us.

Criticisms

Negatives:

1. Balance of Facts:
   Some chapters have a lot to say about the various technologies used or in development for an industry. Other chapters (the terrorist chapter being a prime example) have little to say about the technologies themselves and are busier conjecturing about the implications. I'm not saying those aren't important, but it feels like more effort could have been given in doing research about those areas.
2. Kind of a slow read:
   Despite being fascinating information, Baker seems to drudge through some portions. It's obvious from his openings and closings that he's a journalist, those are excellent, but the in between is rather weak.

Positives:

1. Style:
   As I said the pace does slow down in the middle, but I do like the style with which Baker writes. After all, he really does a great job of setting a scene for his interviews, and he does his a superb job of simplifying the talk of several PhD's into something that the average reader can grasp.
2. Interesting information:
   I found the subject matter legitimately interesting. It was interesting to learn more about how some of the technologies I interact with operate, and what people are doing to improve them.
3. The Future:
   The discussions of the future implications of these technologies are stimulating and fascinating. What does all of this data mining mean for the future of medicine, advertising, voting, privacy and security, and even personal relationships? Baker does an excellent job of being far looking in his vision of these technologies as they may be used once fully applied. He often sees what the less altruistic people will do with the technology someday. If Oppenheimer had this level of foresight who knows how the Second World War would have turned out.

Final Thoughts:

Not the greatest book I've ever read, but not the worst. It's only of temporary value though so if it interests you read it soon, because the rate of technological development we have in America, the book is becoming more outdated with every second.

That said if you're just more interested in the gadgetry then I'd recommend giving this one a miss and just reading tech journals. For better or worse this book will fade into obscurity eventually. It wasn't half bad for an assigned reading, but I can't say I'd hunt it down if I heard about it.

That's about it really.

Ti Voglio Bene,

-matt

Love is the Killer App by Tim Sanders

As with every book I read I'll give you my thoughts up front. Love is the Killer App is a good though wrapped up in a poor delivery. I'd recommend that anyone who is going into a relatively modern business environment give it a read, but be ready for some very silly jargon.

Introduction:

This book was assigned to me for an online class (in a sea of 3 other major reading assignments) and I actually wasn't able to get the book in time for the report that was due, so I had to listen to an audio book version taking notes along the way for the book report. As a result I had to hear Tim Sanders go through each of his points in his own groovy hipster voice.

I will admit that reviewing this book will be a test of my ability to acknowledge the value of the work without allowing my personal tastes to interfere. Obviously this can't be done perfectly, and people reading my reviews must be at least a little bit interested in my opinion as one voice among many. Because of that I'm going to continue to summarize the book in an objective fashion, reserving personal criticisms and commentaries for the criticisms section.

Finally, I honestly try not to judge an assigned reading too harshly. At the very least I look for what the professor saw in the book and what they may have wanted me to glean from the book.

Summary:

Using events from his own life and the lives of people within his personal network Tim Sanders discusses why love (properly defined here as a form of general human compassion and genuine respect) is of great importance in the developing business world.

He deems those who choose love as a priority, "lovecats," a term he chooses in part because it contrasts with the idea of being a, "Mad Dog," in the business world. As described by Sanders, being a lovecat means that you, "Offer your wisdom freely. Give away your address book to everyone who wants it. And always be human." This philosophy of behavior is what Sanders calls "biz-love." He sums these three points up in terms that make up the three major chapters of his book:

1. Knowledge
2. Network
3. Compassion

And these three things are the key to being successful in the new world of business where being a shark or a barracuda is not all there is to being a successful business person.

In his discussion of knowledge, Sander's primary focus is on the gathering of knowledge for one major reason. It makes you useful. This sounds utilitarian and seems to deny the love-based focus of his argument, but his real goal in being useful is to help others. When you do that it helps guarantee your job while helping others. Being knowledgeable makes you useful to everyone around you. Something you have read and have real knowledge of can make you useful in problem solving and brain-storming. You are legitimately useful to people, genuinely helpful.

His primary focus is on the reading of books. 90% is the amount of your reading that should be book related. He gives advice on the entire process. From picking an applicable book (focusing obviously on business related works) to buying multiples of your favorites to pass on to others (further demonstrating the helping others nature of this wisdom). He gives note taking advice and plenty of useful tips on how to retain the information that you are taking into your mind.

Next comes his discussion of networking. As has already been noted in his "lovecat" mission statement, Sanders believes in having an open address book. This is antithetical to the self-involved climber mentality. Most people, he notes, are concerned with amassing connections to make them indispensable. If you know a guy who can get us a discount at that other firm because you two were in the same fraternity, that gives superiors a reason to keep you around.

Sanders offers a different idea of networking. It isn't a personal hoarding of names, numbers, emails and contacts. Instead he recommends a personal connecting of people who can help each other. Do you have a friend with a problem? Do you know people who could assist him? Then introduce them. He compares this to setting up a blind-date. You can't guarantee either side success all you can do is introduce them, try to help them gel then step out of the way. He offers several guidelines for choosing who to pair with whom. Sanders argues that by doing this you enrich your life and your network with even stronger, more capable groups of people.

The last chapter, compassion focuses on the one thing, genuinely caring about others. Now anyone who has ever seen Wallstreet or any film discussing cut-throat business tactics will have in their mind a perception of fat cat white guys in suits smoking cigars while the poor number crunchers, production workers and sales people suffer under their demands. Sanders proposes another way; one that doesn't foster a back-stabbing, dirty-dealing, corner-cutting way of behaving. A way guided by love.

The true essence of this philosophy is not to simply be a facilitator of what others need, but to also be what they need. We continue developing as people throughout our lifetime, and we must be willing to express compassion for others both for their development and for ours. You are showing that you see value in people and that creates an experience, which will make you memorable. Some people try other methods, with a limited manufactured experience or simply feeding greed, but nothing is a substitute for a genuine feeling of compassion toward another human being. People are willing to commit to people that show compassion.

When Sanders discusses compassion, he considers it a two part process: sensing and expressing. Sensing is not simply seeing or hearing, but being observant and remembering your observations. This will help you develop a meaningful way to follow the next step, expressing. Starting with the eyes is Sanders’ ultimate advice for a person who is trying to show compassion. There is nothing like eye contact to press upon someone how much you care about them. Sanders also strongly recommends physical contact, but with many caveats and warnings about being considerate to personal space. As far as when to do these things he recommends three insertion points: salutations, conversations and "quick opps" (opportunities that may appear intermittently).

It is with these thoughts that Sanders closes the book.

Criticisms:

Negatives:

1. Jargon:
   As I noted in my opening, I found this book to be excessively filled with Sanders' personal Jargon. "Biz-world," "Lovecat," "biz-love," and even the title term "killer app," make this feel too much like I need to be Tim Sanders for this method to work for me. This Jargon issue informs my next negative as well.
2. Too cool:
   Tim Sanders is a guy who is very purposefully on the cutting edge. In and of itself this doesn't bother me. The problem is that the way he writes conveys the same, "I know and you don't," mentality that someone who knows about the music scene gives when they say, "you should really hear them live," or "Their earlier stuff was so much better, listen to their early stuff." The jargon is part of that, but another contribution to this is my next negative.
3. Overly Personal:
   Every story is about himself, a co-worker or a buddy. Now the truth is that maybe this guy is so connected that everyone he could possibly write about falls into one of these categories, but there is a more likely explanation. He has done no greater research on the truth or potential of what he is saying. Every argument is heavily anecdotal and so specific to a certain setting that it's hard to see where that story helps the reader.
4. Downplays Difficulties:
   Largely, when Sanders discusses a difficulty in becoming a "lovecat" it seems like they are all internal struggles. Never mind that some business schools still encourage you to be a shark, or that many of the bosses still got to their positions with underhanded tactics. I may be somewhat cynical, but I think there are many businesses where you would be crushed for pursuing "biz-love"

Positives:

1. Appealing:
   Don't misconstrue any of my doubts for disagreements. I love what Sander's has to say. I agree that what we need in the world of business is greater openness and helpfulness. As a person who is normally very open and giving it's good to know that to Tim Sanders (and others like him) are looking for people who are willing to be loving toward others rather than cold and self-interested.
2. Challenging:
   Even as a person who supports Sanders thoughts on the matter I found his beliefs quite challenging. Reading constantly, actively seeking opportunities to help people, these are things that can be difficult when most of what we are thinking about is how to survive our day. The push Sanders has is well characterized as "evangelizing," though not in the traditional fashion. He is delivering "good news" of a sort. The news that love can do us well in business is challenging, it requires us to be willing to step out. "Risk being taken advantage of," that is the call of this book.

Final Thoughts:

In general, I like the book. My biggest concern is that the jargon and general writing style of Tim Sanders will alienate the very people who need to hear this the most. The hard-hearted barracudas won't respect this lesson, in large part, because they won't hold any regard for Sanders form of expression.

It's a good book with a meaningful lesson, but I might have given up on it, if I hadn't had to write a book report about it. And I'm someone who agrees with what Sanders was saying, how much more would people who are in stark disagreement with the points he is making.

So go ahead, and read it. He offers great thoughts on how to go about getting the most out of your readings. How best to interact with people, and how best to connect people.

So there's that, I'll be working to get the other 3 summer reading books posted over the next few weeks.

Ti Voglio Bene,
-matt

Green Lantern (Starring Ryan Reynolds)

This review will require a few extra statements in the introduction. But first let me say that I did like this movie. If you enjoy superhero movies at all you'll like this one. It's not perfect, but in a genre plagued by some abysmal attempts to make money I think you'll find this one to be a good watch and stick around through the credits.

Introduction:

I'm a Lantern Fan:

You may already know from reading my review of Buried that I really like Ryan Reynolds. What you may not know is that I am a comic book freak with an inclination toward the Green Lantern and Spiderman (my favorites from each of the major labels). When I heard that this movie was coming out I was excited at the idea of seeing one of my favorites on screen, and fearful about how wrong it could go.

From an early age I loved the concept of the Green Lantern, a being who is purposefully chosen to be a hero. This is a major difference from many heroes. Normally, heroes and villains fall into one of three categories:

1. Born with powers (Superman, Doomsday)
2. Gain powers through some sort of accident (Spider-man, Hulk)
3. Have no powers, but have the will, determination, and resources to fight/commit crime (Batman and Joker)

But Green Lantern was chosen, because he had the necessary willpower within him to use the powers of the ring, and over come fear. The powers he has are limited only by his imagination and his ability to focus his will, even in the face of great danger.

There have been many lanterns, through out the history of the series but Hal Jordan is the go to. He was the first Green Lantern during the Silver Age of comic books (a reinvention of the superhero universe that tended toward, science rather than magic as the source of power for most heroes). The virtues of the Green Lantern Corps are noble, their powers intriguing and I can't help but like them.

Just as a note I will only write that information that comes from the movie in discussing the film itself.

Comic book Movies:

The other caveat I have is that it's hard to pinpoint what makes a comic book into a good movie, and unfortunately DC didn't hire Christopher Nolan to handle all of their movie titles. Nolan understood something important in the writing of the Batman reboots, you don't write the movie just for fans. You stay true to the material, and you write a movie that a person who knows nothing of the comic can enjoy. So far he's the only person to ever really get that. His movies require no background knowledge of the material, they are self-contained and will do everything you'd expect of any other movie.

Comic book movies in general depend on one thing: Branding. You know the name so you go see the movie. They cram a bunch of characters and names into the plot to keep the fans happy, and build everything else around action and sex appeal, largely ignoring the actually defining characteristics of the universe and the established rules. In my opinion some of the worst offenders of this process have been: DareDevil, Supermans 3, 4 and Superman Returns, GhostRider, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin, Spiderman 3, Electra, X-men 3 and both Fantastic Four movies. I've seen each of these movies more than once and for each of watching I couldn't enjoy it. I'm sure there are others I wouldn't like, because they aren't good movies. They may be cool to watch, and neat to see if you know the characters, but the stories simply aren't good, and with film being the most narrative of all forms of media, the story needs to be good. They don't all need to be The Dark Knight but closer to that than what they are.

In Theaters:

I don't have this movie with me to go through and verify and reflect the way I do with other materials I review so give me that credit if you notice something I said that differentiates from the movie.

With all of that said let's get to the review.

Setting:

The movie is split between two major locations: Coast City, a fictional California city meant to be something like Los Angeles or San Deigo, and Oa, the home planet of the Green Lantern Corp located somewhere near the center of the Universe. It should be noted that in this universe the colors are important. There is an Emotional Electro magnetic Spectrum that includes Green for will power, and Yellow for fear.

Characters:

Heroes:

Hal Jordan:

Let's start with the hero, Hal Jordan. Like his comic book counterpart he is a cocky self-assured test pilot for Ferris Aircraft. He has followed in his father's footsteps. He is also haunted by the memory of his father's death in a flight related accident. This fear continues to plague him professionally and is one of the only things that keeps him from being truly the best pilot out there. He is clever and imaginative enough to beat a pair of AI driven jets that are supposed to be unbeatable. It is his willful drive to never give up that most qualifies him to become a Green Lantern when Abin Sur (an injured and dying Green Lantern) lands on Earth and the ring chooses Hal to be his successor.

Thaal Sinestro:

He is the leader from among the 3600 Lanterns. He is a noble individual. Sinestro is controlled and in command at all times. When the Parallax begins to threaten Oa, however, Sinestro begins to succumb to fear. Sinestro rides out with a group of Lanterns to meet the threat head on, and barely escapes with his life, having seen the monster plant fear in their hearts and feed off of it until they were dead. Though Jordan warns that you can't come back from fear, Sinestro Parallax's power. This leads him to push for the forging of a ring that can harness the yellow power of fear, he wants to master fear, which he believes will give him the power to defeat Parallax. (more on this concept later). He goes from a point of controlled confidence to fearful begs to forge the yellow ring.

The Guardians:

These are some of the oldest being in the universe. They are immortals who were the first to understand the emotional electro-magnetic spectrum, and they chose to harness the most powerful force in the universe, the Green energy of willpower produced by all sentient beings in the universe. Using this power they create the planet Oa, and found the Green Lantern Corps assigning one lantern to each of the 3600 sectors of the universe. They are beings of great power and wisdom and among the lanterns they hold the greatest reverence.

Villains:

Hector Hammond:

Hammond is a xenobiologist and professor at a local university in Coast City. He is recruited to examine Abin Sur's body, which was recovered by the government. He is accidentally exposed to some of Parallax' essence in the body. This begins a transformation in his body. The fear he has of failure, being unloved by Carol, being second rate to his father (behind Hal) and of being looked down on by everyone feeds the growth of Parallax's power and connection with him. He becomes fixated on his fear of being alone and seeks to claim Carol for himself. Eventually Parallax uses him as a puppet trying to get him to kill the Lantern before Parallax arrives at Earth.

Parallax:

At some point in their history, The Guardinans entertained the idea of harnessing another power of the spectrum, fear, but they found it too unstable to capable of overpowering the user. But one of them was not convinced and tried on his own to harness the power, the result was that the yellow energy began to control him, transforming him into a monster that was empowered by feeding on the fear and life force of other sentient beings. Many years ago Abin Sur along with the rest of the Guardians imprisoned Parallax hiding him away. Unfortunately, as often happens when you try to hide your problems, he resurfaces, seeking his revenge on Abin Sur. Fatally injuring him, then turning his eyes on Oa. Hector Hammonds accidental bond to Parallax draws the creature to earth. Seeking to destroy the ring of Abin Sur, which imprisoned him.

Civilians:

Carol Ferris:

The up and coming operator of Ferris Aircraft and love interest of Hal Jordan. They've dated before, but Hal has always run from commitment.

Plot:

The story focuses on the Hal Jordan accepting his role as a hero, when he has avoided responsibility most of his life. The Green Lantern Corp itself is threatened very directly and seeks to fight against this threat. Hal's resolve is ultimately tested by the threats of Hector Hammond and Parallax. He must learn to conquer his fear within if he is to defeat the villains who have embraced the power of raw fear.

Critical Analysis:

Themes:

Will and Fear

The primary theme of the movie, as well as the comic, is that Will Power is a powerful force. That fear gives power but that it comes at the loss of control. Parallax and Hammond are each reduced to monsters by the embracing of fear. The Guardians, the Corps, and Hal must all learn to conquer fear in their hearts if their power is to be at it's greatest. Carol expresses it by telling Hal that what the ring saw in him wasn't that he was without fear, but that he had the ability to overcome that fear, and that is a mark of a great Green Lantern.

Responsibility:

Hal has dodged responsibility at every turn. He keeps from committing to family, work, or anything else, but when the ring selects him, he begins to realize that this is something greater than himself. It is the direction his willful nature has needed all along. He embraces not only the power of the ring but the responsibility that comes with it.

Music:

The score was well done. Rising and falling with the action. A score is only as good as the movie it's attached to (with the possible exception of Chariots of Fire). The movie wasn't dark or intense enough to require a Hans Zimmer, nor was it triumphant enough for John Williams. created a solid score, complementing the story being told and the visuals that we are given.

Acting:

normally this is the one that kills a comic book movie, overacting tends to run rampant in these sorts of movies, but honestly The acting in Green Lantern was great, with maybe one exception.

Ryan Reynolds:

I was nervous when he was selected. I like him, but he didn't strike me as a good Hal Jordan... that is until I reread some of the comics. Hal is cocky, witty and all the things that Reynolds sells best. My concern was that this would require being serious every once in a while, but as with movies like Smokin' Aces, Definitely, Maybe, and Buried I was shown once more that Reynolds (despite his history of being a good looking smart alek) is a very good actor when called upon. He delivered the inner struggle of Jordan, excellently. I have thought many times that surely there was another actor we could have gotten to play the lead, and there may be, but this was a stellar job.

Peter Sarsgaard:

Could you pick a better character to be a mad scientist? I think not. He captures the steady decline of Hector Hammond in a way that makes it believable, but oh so creepy. He's never what you'd call normal, but Sarsgaard shows him to be an innocent, all be it quirky, scientist is rotting from the inside out.

Mark Strong:

Once again an actor who nailed his part. He was noble and respectable. In some media Sinestro is treated like a high-toned sniveling character, the sort of character who would never gain the admiration of the Corps. Strong delivers a performance that shows his serious character and his desperation to defend the corps at all costs. Strong showed that he understood the character when he said, "[Sinestro] is a military guy but isn't immediately bad. It's the kind of person he is that lends himself to becoming bad over the course of the comics being written, but initially he’s quite a heroic figure."

Blake Lively:

Admittedly I'm not a fan of her. I've seen her in a few different things and none of them convinced me she would be good for the role. I still feel that some beautiful, serious actress out there could have beaten her performance, but she did well. In the overall cast she is the only weak member. Her performance isn't abysmal, but I never really buy it when she is being serious or showing meaningful emotions like sadness, love or fear. The rumor that Eva Green, Keri Russell, Diane Kruger were all considered makes me wonder why none of them got the gig.

Writing:

Like most things writing can absolutely kill a movie, and the writing for this one certainly caused some internal bleeding. As a fan I have complaints about the discrepancies with the source material, but earnestly, few of them matter in a movie sense. The integrity of the material was kept in tact. The real problem is that this writing didn't make for a good movie.

Imagination:

We need some. This movie is based on the premise of a character who is only as powerful as his imagination, but we see very little of it come out. There are very few uses of the power ring. The race car track was a good one, and manifesting jets to pull him away from the sun was clever, but those were the only moments that got me thinking, "Man his imagination is limitless." A machine gun turret against an amorphous cloud creature is just foolish. I blame this on the fact that few characters powers require the level of creativity we encounter with the Green Lantern. This is not to say that those characters don't need people to be creative. Batman's gear and how he uses it is nothing short of creative. The same with Superman or Spiderman utilizing their intellect in conjunction with their powers.

Not only do his manifestations (ya know his powers), lack creativity, but the best we can conceive of is that the interstellar being (a former guardian and immortal with all the wisdom and knowledge that involves) doesn't know that the suns gravity could pull him in! I was hoping for something epic. The comic has a great idea for this part, bring in the Guardians and the Corps! This is the only place where I have to make that wholly annoying statement, "The original story was better." If you don't have an idea that trumps the original, stick with it.

Pacing:

You know you're in a poorly written movie when the exposition is more enthralling than some of the battles. A long segment was spent establishing (somewhat poorly) the relationship between hal and his family, we didn't need this, we never see these characters again and any connections we make with them are wasted. In fact we only really have this scene to plant the idea of a race car track in our minds while Hal talks to his nephew. Now pacing is a joint issue that exists between the director and the writers, consider this a shot at both.

Dialogue:

Much of the dialogue was uninspired and cliche. There were jokes, which landed more often than not, but this isn't a comedy. It almost feels like these writers knew how to write for aliens, but not for their own species. The dialogue among the lanterns and the Guardians is crisp and functional, but land on earth (that place that you're from, Greg Berlanti, Michael Green, Mark Guggenheim, and Michael Goldenburg) and the writing becomes so ridden with cliches and aphorisms that it felt like I was transitioning between two different movies. In truth it was the opposite of what I felt in Thor, I was always wanting more time with my own kind in that movie, this one made me long for Kilowog and Tomar-Re just to hear some decent chatter.

Narration:

I've already alluded to this, but let me make it clear. The exposition of the story was excellent. The opening dialogue and the later story of how parallax came to be, were both portions of this movie I enjoyed. The story was told well in these moments, but this only further frustrates me that most of the human characters can't say anything in a compelling fashion. If the intent was to show how undeveloped we are in comparison to these more ancient races I think all the writers really did was show how underdeveloped they are by comparison to good screenplay writers.

Direction:

Martin Campbell directed Mask of Zorro, Golden Eye, and Casino Royale. This brings me to my question: "Why was the action so disappointing in this movie?" I read the comics, and have watched cartoon imaginings of these characters that each result in more compelling battles than this. The training fight between Sinestro and Jordan was a good one, but few other fights/battles had me concerned about the outcome. The battle between the group of lanterns and Parallax was interesting because we were seeing that the lanterns had come up against an power they couldn't easily overcome. Once again Earth seems to be the problem, because once we are there the villains seem so inept. Hector Hammond's giant brain benefits him nothing in his short fight with Hal, and Parallax has nothing other than size and intimidation to benefit him. Why not have him gain control of Carol and use her life against Hal. That would be compelling, but simply having her be present doesn't concern us.

That said Campbell's visual direction and his ability to bring a good performance out of his actors (excepting my opinion of Miss Lively) were top notch. The feel of Oa, the vastness of space the look of the green energy were spot on as were the performances of our principal actors.

Final Thoughts:

I like this movie. Some of that is fanboy, loyalty and some of that is the simple fact that I can't discard what I liked about it, because of what I didn't like. This movie doesn't unseat The Dark Knight as my favorite Super Hero Movie. It doesn't even break into my top five (Spiderman, Superman, The Incredible Hulk, and Iron Man), but it's nowhere near the bottom 5 either (X-men 3, Spider-man 3, Electra, Fantastic Four 2, Ghost Rider). It's the biggest box office success of the summer, nor does it deserve to be. It is truly an average super hero movie, which would have been fine a few years ago, however the current atmosphere for comic book movies makes this movie to little too late.

Marvel on the war path to dominate the genre with The Avengers and all of it's build up films (two of which you'll note in my top 5), and Christopher Nolan is redefining the genre altogether with his Batman reboot. I'm sorry Green Lantern, but you've got nothing on those guys. It was fun. If you make a sequel I'll show up, but if it sucks I may need to blow up the WB studios.

Ti Voglio Bene,

-matt