A great many believers are good people who don't really think about god or religion all that frequently. They may occasionally pray or think about their dead loved ones, but you won't catch them on the internet hammering their ideology into someone's skull, or telling someone that they're going to hell. In fact, many believers may be inclined to befriend gays or atheists without ever being threatened by their presence or opposing viewpoints. They may know what the bible says, but instead of seeing a dire ultimatum they take it all to mean "be excellent to each other, dude." This is fine and dandy from my perspective, but I am still quite curious about what holds these people to their beliefs, even when they are not particularly strong ones. Through my not-so-scientific observation I have determined that it could be as simple as... it is just comforting to think that there is a loving god and an afterlife where you get to meet all your dead friends.
Indeed, many aspects of belief are focused around comfort. A Catholic friend of mine tells me she prays, not to change the outcome (this she knows is all chance), but to ease her mind. For many, the idea that a supreme being watches over them is enough to get them through lonely times. My girlfriend tells me that she is inclined to believe because the idea that there is nothing after life is unsettling. "So you die and... that's it?" That's right, baby. This life is all you've got. And it is enough.
There was a time when I could not get myself to accept my mortality and the temporary status of my life. I felt awful that there was so much to learn about the world and that I would never get to see how it all turned out. Things like evolution are too interesting to view from just a single point in time. I wanted to see life as it appeared a million years from now. I envisioned my soul to be a disembodied intelligence that has been floating in space since the dawn of time until that fateful day in 1982 when it nested inside the body of a newborn infant. Then, as the body grew up, its consciousness allowed the soul to recognize itself. And now I think about that story and how fantastic and pleasing it is. How seductive it is to lose yourself to that incredible possibility. Somehow, I resisted and reminded myself to see life for how it really is. If my soul really was eternal, it did me no good, because it is quite obvious that I am starting this life from scratch. I have much to learn.
I began thinking a lot about death. I died a hundred times within my imagination. It was practice for the big game. At first, my discipline was shoddy. After my death, I would imagine my body lying there and my soul would release a lingering shout, a resistant call that faded as I realized that I could not go back. No, I would stop myself, that's not how it works. Do over. And so I would go, dying and simulating the experience until I was content that I was being as honest as I could be about the situation. My deaths went from wells of regret to abrupt interruptions of consciousness. I went from fear to acceptance. When I actually do die, my consciousness will fade and there will be no time to reflect on the shame, the regret, or the loss.
Like most thinking beings, I am not looking forward to an early death. I am also afraid of being mangled without dying. I try to avoid those situations all the same. But, when death does come with certainty, I can say that I would welcome it. There is nothing beyond the door to fear. I won't even know I'm beyond the door.
It occurred to me that the process I went through to become more honest with myself about the concept of death might help others who may cling to trivial beliefs simply because they are better than reality. While I cannot judge someone for holding a private belief for the purpose of feeling better about something, I wanted to offer the option of a reality that isn't so bad. In fact, I might argue that seeing death for what it is and being completely comfortable with it has the potential to enhance your life as you actually live it. Why assume you'll see your mother in the afterlife when you can call her up and talk to her now? Why live your life in fear when you can live knowing that you won't experience a second of regret when it is done? So many terrible things have been done in the name of an afterlife; don't let your life be another victim of the lie. This life is all you've got. And it is enough.
25 June 2010
17 June 2010
To Cut or Not To Cut: The Circumcision Debate
I am a firm opponent of default and ritual circumcision. I do not believe it should be a parent's decision to have a swath of skin removed from their son's penis for a non-emergency. There is no justification for default circumcision that would make it imperative or even advisable on children of such a young age. The dangers and effects far outweigh any benefits or precautions. Circumcisions, as an unelected (by the patient) procedure should be expressly reserved for extreme phimosis and contracted diseases. In all other cases, circumcision should be the decision of a responsible, grown adult. The automatic decision by parents to have their son circumcised is a cultural black eye. Male circumcision is genital mutilation, just as female circumcision is.
I am not circumcised, but the practice affects me. I feel empathy for the thousands of infants who are subjected to it every day. Some go into shock. Some grow up with scarred or deformed penises. Some grow up with a desensitized glans due to excessive contact with their underpants. Some contract infections and die. Every one of them grow up never knowing what it feels to have those extra billions of nerve endings. Most require lubrication to masturbate. As an entire culture, the "natural look" becomes foreign. I've heard too many American girls express disgust for intact penises. This is not because they are naturally disgusting (my penis is fucking magnificent, as some women will attest) but because circumcision has become the norm and people are not comfortable with foreign-looking body parts. This systemic problem alone should shake the minds of anyone who holds values (particularly ones such as natural affinity) as dear.
Religious justification for circumcision, as you might guess I would say, is ridiculous. Circumcision has been performed throughout history as a rite of passage, but do we really need such barbarism in today's world? As an atheist, I would also argue that any perceived necessity for circumcision spits in the face of an intelligent designer. Even the idea that everyone is doing it is bogus; the number of boys circumcised at birth fell from 65 to 55 percent between 1993 and 2003. Furthermore, any parents who circumcise their child on the sole basis that they wouldn't get teased for their "turtleneck" in the locker room are, in my mind, shallow as a saucer. Instead of mutilating your child for the sake of social integration, why not teach them to love their "unique" (NATURAL!!!!) features? Some parents decide that because they were circumcised, their child must be as well. This is nothing more than vain projection on to your children.
It seems that every justification for circumcision works backwards from the want to do the procedure in the first place. To build a case for cutting off a child's foreskin, many groups suggest that it has health and hygiene benefits. Supposedly it prevents stuff you can already avoid by being smart. This notion falls along the same thought lines as never leaving the house to prevent getting in a car accident. A foreskin, like a vehicle, requires proper use and maintenance. Done right, there are no practical, statistical or aesthetic reasons to remove it. It is also not surprising that most circumcised males don't feel sorry about their loss. Many are proud. I've studied too much psychology to be impressed by some random man's expressed satisfaction with his snipped penis. Even a falsely convicted felon can find the upside of his experience.
Parents may feel that by causing a child a lot of pain at a time in their life that they will not remember when they are older will save them from future pain as they grow older. This is wrong on many levels. As stated, the preventative qualities of circumcision are completely mitigated by responsible care of one's body. Once again, instead of mutilating your child, teach them to be a better person. Furthermore, there is a large misconception about infant development that needs to be cleared up. What a child experiences during the first six months of their life (known as a critical period) matters a lot. During this time, the brain decides what functions will be necessary to emphasize in further growth in accordance with the use they get. For example, without sufficient exposure to light during this period, much of a child's vision will degenerate. Subjecting an infant to undue stress and excruciating pain can affect a child's affinities throughout the rest of its life. Though I know of no studies done that attempt to correlate infant circumcision with adult mental defects, my point is simple: the logical risk is not worth the supposed benefit.
I really don't see how male circumcision as a non-elective procedure is any different than female circumcision, which we hold to be quite vile. It is a perplexing double standard. To put it plainly, circumcision should be a choice made by an informed adult. The practice of it by default, on an infant is nonsensical and barbaric.
I am not circumcised, but the practice affects me. I feel empathy for the thousands of infants who are subjected to it every day. Some go into shock. Some grow up with scarred or deformed penises. Some grow up with a desensitized glans due to excessive contact with their underpants. Some contract infections and die. Every one of them grow up never knowing what it feels to have those extra billions of nerve endings. Most require lubrication to masturbate. As an entire culture, the "natural look" becomes foreign. I've heard too many American girls express disgust for intact penises. This is not because they are naturally disgusting (my penis is fucking magnificent, as some women will attest) but because circumcision has become the norm and people are not comfortable with foreign-looking body parts. This systemic problem alone should shake the minds of anyone who holds values (particularly ones such as natural affinity) as dear.
Religious justification for circumcision, as you might guess I would say, is ridiculous. Circumcision has been performed throughout history as a rite of passage, but do we really need such barbarism in today's world? As an atheist, I would also argue that any perceived necessity for circumcision spits in the face of an intelligent designer. Even the idea that everyone is doing it is bogus; the number of boys circumcised at birth fell from 65 to 55 percent between 1993 and 2003. Furthermore, any parents who circumcise their child on the sole basis that they wouldn't get teased for their "turtleneck" in the locker room are, in my mind, shallow as a saucer. Instead of mutilating your child for the sake of social integration, why not teach them to love their "unique" (NATURAL!!!!) features? Some parents decide that because they were circumcised, their child must be as well. This is nothing more than vain projection on to your children.
It seems that every justification for circumcision works backwards from the want to do the procedure in the first place. To build a case for cutting off a child's foreskin, many groups suggest that it has health and hygiene benefits. Supposedly it prevents stuff you can already avoid by being smart. This notion falls along the same thought lines as never leaving the house to prevent getting in a car accident. A foreskin, like a vehicle, requires proper use and maintenance. Done right, there are no practical, statistical or aesthetic reasons to remove it. It is also not surprising that most circumcised males don't feel sorry about their loss. Many are proud. I've studied too much psychology to be impressed by some random man's expressed satisfaction with his snipped penis. Even a falsely convicted felon can find the upside of his experience.
Parents may feel that by causing a child a lot of pain at a time in their life that they will not remember when they are older will save them from future pain as they grow older. This is wrong on many levels. As stated, the preventative qualities of circumcision are completely mitigated by responsible care of one's body. Once again, instead of mutilating your child, teach them to be a better person. Furthermore, there is a large misconception about infant development that needs to be cleared up. What a child experiences during the first six months of their life (known as a critical period) matters a lot. During this time, the brain decides what functions will be necessary to emphasize in further growth in accordance with the use they get. For example, without sufficient exposure to light during this period, much of a child's vision will degenerate. Subjecting an infant to undue stress and excruciating pain can affect a child's affinities throughout the rest of its life. Though I know of no studies done that attempt to correlate infant circumcision with adult mental defects, my point is simple: the logical risk is not worth the supposed benefit.
I really don't see how male circumcision as a non-elective procedure is any different than female circumcision, which we hold to be quite vile. It is a perplexing double standard. To put it plainly, circumcision should be a choice made by an informed adult. The practice of it by default, on an infant is nonsensical and barbaric.
14 June 2010
This Is Why You Believe In Silly Shit
Michael Shermer sums it all up rather quickly. The human brain is designed to see patterns and the chemicals in our brains determine our propensity for it.
11 June 2010
How To: Two SSL Domains on One Amazon EC2 Instance
First, I want to apologize to my regular readers for this post. This is not what you come here to see. Alas, I just spent many hours trying to find a way around a problem whose solution does not fully exist yet on the internet. I needed to put this out there for anyone else who may need it in the future.
The Problem: Amazon EC2 instances only allow you to assign one IP address per instance, so it is almost impossible to serve two different domains with two different SSL certificates from the same instance. There is a workaround that exists out there on the internet, which was written 6 months ago, but it fails to explain a few crippling details that will take you hours to figure out and Amazon has also slightly changed their interface since then. Hopefully this tutorial will smooth things out for a while.
The Setup: The instance in question is running Fedora with a LAMP stack. The system is running on mostly default settings. There are two domains, domain1.com and domain2.com. I don't have a solution for three or more.
I'm assuming, with this tutorial, that you already know how to work with Apache settings to create virtual hosts or that you have access to someone who does.
The Solution:
Step 1: If you haven't done it, create an Elastic IP in the Amazon Management Console and assign it to your instance. Then, point domain1.com's DNS (A record) to the IP. I don't know what happened, but in the middle of working, the amazon instance just changed its public DNS location. Assigning this Elastic IP will ensure that it doesn't burn you like it did me.
Step 2: In your Amazon Management Console, create an Elastic Load Balancer. Forward port 80 to 80 and forward port 443 (https) to 8443. You can actually choose any viable port of your liking, but I used 8443 to follow the aforementioned solution. Point the ELB to your instance. Then, point domain2.com's DNS (CNAME record) to the ELB's DNS name.
A note about ELB: It costs extra money. It's not a lot, but it is extra.
Step 3: Edit your instance's security group to allow both ports 443 and 8443.
Step 4: Edit /etc/httpd/conf.d/ssl.conf
Below:
By default ssl.conf has a default VirtualHost declaration for port 443. Change the following values within it to whatever they need to be to run your SSL:
At the bottom of the file, add an identical section, but change the port and the relevant values to suit domain2.com:
Step 5: Wait for DNS to propagate, restart Apache, cross your fingers.
The Problem: Amazon EC2 instances only allow you to assign one IP address per instance, so it is almost impossible to serve two different domains with two different SSL certificates from the same instance. There is a workaround that exists out there on the internet, which was written 6 months ago, but it fails to explain a few crippling details that will take you hours to figure out and Amazon has also slightly changed their interface since then. Hopefully this tutorial will smooth things out for a while.
The Setup: The instance in question is running Fedora with a LAMP stack. The system is running on mostly default settings. There are two domains, domain1.com and domain2.com. I don't have a solution for three or more.
I'm assuming, with this tutorial, that you already know how to work with Apache settings to create virtual hosts or that you have access to someone who does.
The Solution:
Step 1: If you haven't done it, create an Elastic IP in the Amazon Management Console and assign it to your instance. Then, point domain1.com's DNS (A record) to the IP. I don't know what happened, but in the middle of working, the amazon instance just changed its public DNS location. Assigning this Elastic IP will ensure that it doesn't burn you like it did me.
Step 2: In your Amazon Management Console, create an Elastic Load Balancer. Forward port 80 to 80 and forward port 443 (https) to 8443. You can actually choose any viable port of your liking, but I used 8443 to follow the aforementioned solution. Point the ELB to your instance. Then, point domain2.com's DNS (CNAME record) to the ELB's DNS name.
A note about ELB: It costs extra money. It's not a lot, but it is extra.
Step 3: Edit your instance's security group to allow both ports 443 and 8443.
Step 4: Edit /etc/httpd/conf.d/ssl.conf
Below:
Listen 443Add:
Listen 8443
By default ssl.conf has a default VirtualHost declaration for port 443. Change the following values within it to whatever they need to be to run your SSL:
<VirtualHost _default_:443>
ServerName www.domain1.com
ErrorLog logs/domain1_ssl_error_log
TransferLog logs/domain1_ssl_access_log
LogLevel warn
SSLEngine on
SSLProtocol all -SSLv2
SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT:!SSLv2:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:+LOW
SSLCertificateFile /var/www/ssl/domain1.crt
SSLCertificateKeyFile /var/www/ssl/domain1.key
SSLCACertificateFile /var/www/ssl/verisignssp.crt
SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" \
nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \
downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0
CustomLog logs/ssl_request_log \
"%t %h %{SSL_PROTOCOL}x %{SSL_CIPHER}x \"%r\" %b"
</VirtualHost>
At the bottom of the file, add an identical section, but change the port and the relevant values to suit domain2.com:
<VirtualHost _default_:8443>
ServerName www.domain2.com
ErrorLog logs/domain2_ssl_error_log
TransferLog logs/domain2_ssl_access_log
LogLevel warn
RequestHeader set X_FORWARDED_PROTO 'https'
SSLEngine on
SSLProtocol all -SSLv2
SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT:!SSLv2:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:+LOW
SSLCertificateFile /var/www/ssl/domain2.crt
SSLCertificateKeyFile /var/www/ssl/domain2.key
SSLCACertificateFile /var/www/ssl/verisignssp.crt
SetEnvIf User-Agent ".*MSIE.*" \
nokeepalive ssl-unclean-shutdown \
downgrade-1.0 force-response-1.0
CustomLog logs/ssl_request_log \
"%t %h %{SSL_PROTOCOL}x %{SSL_CIPHER}x \"%r\" %b"
</VirtualHost>
Step 5: Wait for DNS to propagate, restart Apache, cross your fingers.
10 June 2010
Reading Report: Bonk
The quest for knowledge is, in many ways, just as interesting as the knowledge itself. Sometimes it is a situation where nobody in the world could possibly be as interested in a subject as one exceedingly quirky scientist. Other times, the hoops that researchers have to go through to obtain funding for their dubious-sounding project are quite preposterous. Then, there are the times when the theories are so outrageous in hindsight, we wonder why anyone ever believed them in the first place. While most sciences have all of these types of stories, their astounding nature is magnified when the subject is sex. In her book Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, Mary Roach covers it all with hilarity. Though I do not often read humorous books, I figure that I would hard pressed to find another science tome that can make me squirm and cackle quite like this one did.The main takeaway from this book is that we know very little about our bodies in the context of sexuality in comparison to other sciences. The reason for this is simply that society is and has always been completely backwards in its views about it. Still today in some countries, scientists risk their lives by engaging in studies that focus on female sexuality. For centuries, puritan thinking handed the responsibility of sexual discovery to bored gynecologists and physicians with overactive imaginations. Though you may imagine today's world to be far more open to sexual studies, the wordplay that must be done to the names of the studies and the machinery and props involved will tell you otherwise. Though the picture is bleak, Roach tackles it with an amused tone that never lets you frown.
I consider myself a hard sell when it comes to humor, but Roach manufactures the cleverest, sharpest jokes out of such strange material. It isn't easy to make me laugh, but I was overcome many many times. By contrast if you chuckle at Marmaduke you might want to keep an oxygen tank handy. Let me share with you one excerpt that I think sums it all up nicely: "Kinsey wanted Dellenback to film his staff. There are three ways to read that sentence, all of them true." Like I said, sharp. That's the kind of line you follow with a tug of your lapel. The book is full of them. If you are curious about the study of sex and like to laugh, this should be enough of a sales pitch.
Roach also encounters many interesting people during her research. One of the most memorable characters in the book is the Taiwanese Dr. Hsu, who is the world's leading expert on penile reconstruction. His enthusiasm for his craft and his frequent euphemisms spoken in broken English are simultaneously adorable and riotous. "So this guy. Now ready to make a home run. Like a baseball bat!" Roach herself is quite the sport. Sometimes, her research can't get her anywhere near the studies that are taking place, so she volunteers to be a subject herself. Sometimes she even gets her husband involved, the poor thing. It all makes for an amusing journey.
This book is not so much a learning experience as it is a story about the history and current state of sex research. I think its main purpose is to be interesting without being loaded with too many lessons. While there are a few tidbits that you can take away and use in your own sex life, most of the research points to inconclusive findings. This tells me not that science fails, but that sexuality has so many facets that normal standard scientific methods of isolating variables for study are simply not enough. It is a message that highlights the necessity for bold sexuality research, unhindered by conservative social stigmas. We'll never get to the bottom of our pool of mysteries if academia insists we stay at wading depth. Though some countries have allowed research to get quite gritty, I have a feeling that most of us will continue to find sexuality a taboo subject. Which is a shame, 'cause I'm a freak in bed.
09 June 2010
Review: Iron Man 2
Warning, this review contains spoilers.
To prepare for Iron Man 2, I watched the first movie the day before. I probably shouldn't have, because the second fails to compare in so many ways. I suppose there are more personal activities that are to blame for my criticism, such as reading several books about science and whatnot. The movie just reeked of every sequel where the director was like, "Yo dawg, I heard you liked superheroes," and then proceeded to inundate the story with as much crap as could possibly be contained in their quadrupled budget. Fortunately, Iron Man 2 does one thing sufficiently that other horrible sequels fail miserably at: maintain character integrity. That isn't to say that there aren't off-color moments for the characters, but at least nobody turned emo and had a musical number.
The movie joins Tony Stark as he is basking in the glow of his own celebrity. The extravagance that is on display is quite boring. One review I had previously read stated that the real villain of this movie is Tony Stark himself, which is a great point. Robert Downey Jr exudes none of the charm that made the first movie so entertaining. Every joke falls flat the second time around. The witty banter now seems forced. Though Tony is tormented by a sort of illness that he tries to keep secret, the ensuing tantrums are irritating, not endearing. Now, there are a couple plot devices you can use, as a writer, to make up for the inexcusable behavior of your hero during the first act. Collateral damage is always compelling. Or the loss of powers. Unfortunately, there is none of that. In fact, Iron Man only gets more powerful in the end. There is never any worry.
There are essentially four battles in this movie. The first comes about a third of the way into the movie, which means you have endure THAT MUCH billionaire belligerence before you get to any sort of action. While the first fight between Whiplash and Iron Man is relatively short, its implications are interesting. Actually, the competitive drama between Stark, his competitors, his friends and his enemies is the most intriguing part of this movie. We are introduced to Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, whose weapons company is a direct competitor to Stark Industries. Rockwell steals most of his scenes, but he also takes a few hefty swings that turn into airy whiffs.
This brings me to the other casting choices. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, but her confidence has given way to stammering neurotic stupidity. She wasn't great in the first movie, but now she's annoying. Furthermore, the replacement of Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle for the role of James Rhodes / War Machine is puzzling. Howard brought a certain softness to the role, where you could understand the bond between Rhodes and Stark, whereas Cheadle plays it cold, emotionless and stiff. On the positive side, Mickey Rourke works well with what he was given as Whiplash / Crimson Dynamo. Scarlett Johansson does well enough for Black Widow, but the dramatic faces she makes when its her turn to kick ass are just ridiculous.
Next in my crosshairs is the tech and science department, which one must understandably suspend their knowledge of the real world in order to jive with. Unfortunately, I've been reading a lot of science books lately, and I work in tech. It seems that we can't go for too long without encountering some genius who can hack into any system within seconds of encountering it. That's OK, because if we accept that he can do that, we also accept that he can create software to run and control an army of drones within a few weeks... in addition to actually building that army AND his own suit of armor. Meanwhile, Tony Stark's intelligence starts to look rather mundane. That is until he decides to create an whole new element. That's right, the writers had the audacity to suggest that there was an as-yet undisocvered element that was conveniently the key to all that was ailing our irritating friend Tony Stark. If you hadn't just finished reading a synopsis of strong nuclear forces, you might have let this pass, but I couldn't. Basically, the limitations of strong nuclear forces are the reasons why all the elements at the end of the periodic table are either unstable or theoretical, so to insinuate a whole new element, one that is particularly stable and safe (safer than palladium, at least, which is inert and harmless in reality), is remotely possible is preposterous. I seriously was hoping for a deux ex galactica instead of needless speculative inventions.
Back to my point about compelling action. Nothing is more boring than a fight against unmanned drones, particularly ones who are dead-set on a single target. While some drones unload their fire power on statues, buildings and bushes, it appears that very few of the thousands of people in their line of fire are actually harmed. Certainly, there did not appear to be any deaths, as there were no bodies lying about. There are no hostages, no split decisions, and Iron Man even has the time to save a little boy whose drone attacker takes way too long to recognize as a target. To compound the point, the drones are not even that deadly. They have a few weapons, sure, but at point blank range, surrounding their target, their combined firepower hardly compels Iron Man to use his "one-off" super weapon until after a few minutes of going through the motions of knocking them around.
At the end of this movie, I was relieved to have only paid half price. I don't feel like it progressed the Iron Man story. It was just another episode of a comic book where a bad guy shows up and is swiftly dispatched by a hero that always stays one step ahead. This movie was entertaining, but mostly in the way that complaining is more fun than sitting quiet. At the very least, I am glad that this movie wasn't downright terrible like Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3 or Wolverine. It wasn't great, but I'm not calling for a do-over.
The movie joins Tony Stark as he is basking in the glow of his own celebrity. The extravagance that is on display is quite boring. One review I had previously read stated that the real villain of this movie is Tony Stark himself, which is a great point. Robert Downey Jr exudes none of the charm that made the first movie so entertaining. Every joke falls flat the second time around. The witty banter now seems forced. Though Tony is tormented by a sort of illness that he tries to keep secret, the ensuing tantrums are irritating, not endearing. Now, there are a couple plot devices you can use, as a writer, to make up for the inexcusable behavior of your hero during the first act. Collateral damage is always compelling. Or the loss of powers. Unfortunately, there is none of that. In fact, Iron Man only gets more powerful in the end. There is never any worry.
There are essentially four battles in this movie. The first comes about a third of the way into the movie, which means you have endure THAT MUCH billionaire belligerence before you get to any sort of action. While the first fight between Whiplash and Iron Man is relatively short, its implications are interesting. Actually, the competitive drama between Stark, his competitors, his friends and his enemies is the most intriguing part of this movie. We are introduced to Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, whose weapons company is a direct competitor to Stark Industries. Rockwell steals most of his scenes, but he also takes a few hefty swings that turn into airy whiffs.
This brings me to the other casting choices. Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Pepper Potts, but her confidence has given way to stammering neurotic stupidity. She wasn't great in the first movie, but now she's annoying. Furthermore, the replacement of Terrence Howard with Don Cheadle for the role of James Rhodes / War Machine is puzzling. Howard brought a certain softness to the role, where you could understand the bond between Rhodes and Stark, whereas Cheadle plays it cold, emotionless and stiff. On the positive side, Mickey Rourke works well with what he was given as Whiplash / Crimson Dynamo. Scarlett Johansson does well enough for Black Widow, but the dramatic faces she makes when its her turn to kick ass are just ridiculous.
Next in my crosshairs is the tech and science department, which one must understandably suspend their knowledge of the real world in order to jive with. Unfortunately, I've been reading a lot of science books lately, and I work in tech. It seems that we can't go for too long without encountering some genius who can hack into any system within seconds of encountering it. That's OK, because if we accept that he can do that, we also accept that he can create software to run and control an army of drones within a few weeks... in addition to actually building that army AND his own suit of armor. Meanwhile, Tony Stark's intelligence starts to look rather mundane. That is until he decides to create an whole new element. That's right, the writers had the audacity to suggest that there was an as-yet undisocvered element that was conveniently the key to all that was ailing our irritating friend Tony Stark. If you hadn't just finished reading a synopsis of strong nuclear forces, you might have let this pass, but I couldn't. Basically, the limitations of strong nuclear forces are the reasons why all the elements at the end of the periodic table are either unstable or theoretical, so to insinuate a whole new element, one that is particularly stable and safe (safer than palladium, at least, which is inert and harmless in reality), is remotely possible is preposterous. I seriously was hoping for a deux ex galactica instead of needless speculative inventions.
Back to my point about compelling action. Nothing is more boring than a fight against unmanned drones, particularly ones who are dead-set on a single target. While some drones unload their fire power on statues, buildings and bushes, it appears that very few of the thousands of people in their line of fire are actually harmed. Certainly, there did not appear to be any deaths, as there were no bodies lying about. There are no hostages, no split decisions, and Iron Man even has the time to save a little boy whose drone attacker takes way too long to recognize as a target. To compound the point, the drones are not even that deadly. They have a few weapons, sure, but at point blank range, surrounding their target, their combined firepower hardly compels Iron Man to use his "one-off" super weapon until after a few minutes of going through the motions of knocking them around.
At the end of this movie, I was relieved to have only paid half price. I don't feel like it progressed the Iron Man story. It was just another episode of a comic book where a bad guy shows up and is swiftly dispatched by a hero that always stays one step ahead. This movie was entertaining, but mostly in the way that complaining is more fun than sitting quiet. At the very least, I am glad that this movie wasn't downright terrible like Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3 or Wolverine. It wasn't great, but I'm not calling for a do-over.
03 June 2010
On Knowing Reality
When we tout science, we talk about falsifiable principles that can be disproved with a single instance of inconsistency. The cool thing is that those principles hold up. Occasionally throughout history, we learn a little bit more about the world and a few principles get shattered, but new, improved ones take their place. It is a process of constantly solidifying our grasp on the reality we live in. And it works. The more we know, the more fabulous our technology becomes and the more we are able to improve our lives. Without this concrete understanding of what reality is and what the consistent values within it are, we would not be able to design incredible machines like computers, electron microscopes, hybrid engines, and lasers. If our calculations and theories were off by just a little, none of it would work. This is the stuff of reality.
When someone pipes up with a hypothetical question like, "how do we know what we know is real," I roll my eyes. There are entire branches of philosophy that explore the realness of perception and observation, but pardon me if I dismiss them all as mental masturbation and patent bullshit. It isn't that science has gone as far as it could go (indeed, they said that 100 years ago and Einstein proved everyone wrong), but that, at some point, we have to stop giving credence to flights of fancy. Particularly, ones that cannot be falsified. Creating doubt around a reality we already agree upon existing is like packing three suitcases for a weekend trip. The notion that our senses, our only connection to the world we live in, may not be detecting reality is the kind of idea that crashes right into a wall not a second beyond the start of the race.
For fun, let's suppose that our senses describe a subjective reality, that there is nothing that can be objectively verified. We don't even have to lay ground rules for this experiment. We don't have to exclude schizophrenics or synesthesiacs or color blinds. Actually, in this world, we're all pretty schizo. If my reality was subjective, it would mean that you potentially don't exist. Or, since you're the one reading this, I don't exist. Or we are just parts of the same person. Everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, which would make me, by all standards a genius. You see, I never claimed to have discovered the special theory of relativity, but since I imagined it, I must have anyways. And even though I hardly understand Turing machines, I thought them up, too. Or maybe the words you're reading now were not written by me, but by you, as you imagine yourself to be sitting at your computer and browsing the internet, which doesn't really exist either. No, nothing would matter in the least because I only exist within my own head. Which means my actions lack consequence. Which means I am surely mad for arguing with myself.
Wow, what a mindfuck. I think I've seen a movie like that before. So we have two possible conclusions. Either there is a shared, objective reality that we can make solid determinations about, or I'm batshit crazy. Or you're batshit crazy, sitting there and reading something that you imagine that I wrote even though I don't exist. Ok, I'll stop. Either way, it makes sense to keep assuming that I live in a real, breathing world, where actions have consequences and verifiable observations are to be trusted. What is not to be trusted are things that happen only to me. Anecdotes are not evidence. They are as fallible as the memory storage system in our brain that acts as the only way we have to access them. They are nice stories, but they are not truths. If you're going to, don't even ask me to define "evidence" or "truth" - just keep wanking.
The problem with relativism is that there is no end to the imagination. It is possible to occupy one's self with an infinite string of suppositions without ever coming to a consequential conclusion. The same problem arises when we question the existence of free will. In the end, it doesn't matter if the world is relative or if free will exists. It is pure mental masturbation. It seems that the only practical reason for these arguments (beyond rubbing one's ego in a pleasing fashion) is to create a platform upon which one might insult or undermine objectivists like myself, who see the world as definite. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. The world is how it is. Live in it.
When someone pipes up with a hypothetical question like, "how do we know what we know is real," I roll my eyes. There are entire branches of philosophy that explore the realness of perception and observation, but pardon me if I dismiss them all as mental masturbation and patent bullshit. It isn't that science has gone as far as it could go (indeed, they said that 100 years ago and Einstein proved everyone wrong), but that, at some point, we have to stop giving credence to flights of fancy. Particularly, ones that cannot be falsified. Creating doubt around a reality we already agree upon existing is like packing three suitcases for a weekend trip. The notion that our senses, our only connection to the world we live in, may not be detecting reality is the kind of idea that crashes right into a wall not a second beyond the start of the race.For fun, let's suppose that our senses describe a subjective reality, that there is nothing that can be objectively verified. We don't even have to lay ground rules for this experiment. We don't have to exclude schizophrenics or synesthesiacs or color blinds. Actually, in this world, we're all pretty schizo. If my reality was subjective, it would mean that you potentially don't exist. Or, since you're the one reading this, I don't exist. Or we are just parts of the same person. Everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, which would make me, by all standards a genius. You see, I never claimed to have discovered the special theory of relativity, but since I imagined it, I must have anyways. And even though I hardly understand Turing machines, I thought them up, too. Or maybe the words you're reading now were not written by me, but by you, as you imagine yourself to be sitting at your computer and browsing the internet, which doesn't really exist either. No, nothing would matter in the least because I only exist within my own head. Which means my actions lack consequence. Which means I am surely mad for arguing with myself.
Wow, what a mindfuck. I think I've seen a movie like that before. So we have two possible conclusions. Either there is a shared, objective reality that we can make solid determinations about, or I'm batshit crazy. Or you're batshit crazy, sitting there and reading something that you imagine that I wrote even though I don't exist. Ok, I'll stop. Either way, it makes sense to keep assuming that I live in a real, breathing world, where actions have consequences and verifiable observations are to be trusted. What is not to be trusted are things that happen only to me. Anecdotes are not evidence. They are as fallible as the memory storage system in our brain that acts as the only way we have to access them. They are nice stories, but they are not truths. If you're going to, don't even ask me to define "evidence" or "truth" - just keep wanking.
The problem with relativism is that there is no end to the imagination. It is possible to occupy one's self with an infinite string of suppositions without ever coming to a consequential conclusion. The same problem arises when we question the existence of free will. In the end, it doesn't matter if the world is relative or if free will exists. It is pure mental masturbation. It seems that the only practical reason for these arguments (beyond rubbing one's ego in a pleasing fashion) is to create a platform upon which one might insult or undermine objectivists like myself, who see the world as definite. Well, I've said it before and I'll say it again. It doesn't matter how you feel about it. The world is how it is. Live in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)