Armed with an extremely original yet sickening plot, Oldboy will keep you fascinated in suspense… if you can bear to watch.

A stunning sci-fi vision of a terrible society, this 1926 silent film screams, but much of it seems hokey by today’s standards.

In case you were wondering why I was so busy this semester, I was doing psychology research on behalf of my professor from last semester. The topic was: the experience of conscious will. Very very deep stuff. Extremely fascinating. This is so fundamental to the way we all think and behave, I think everyone should learn this stuff!

To sum it all up, I wrote a 20-page paper. I don’t want to post it, so please e-mail me if you’re interested in reading it!

A thrilling spectacle in the spirit of the original Kong, this fantastic period-film will reach all your senses. 4/5 stars!

In such a modern age, I can’t believe I need to be concerned about laws that require religion to be taught in science classes. Luckily, the Pennsylvania court ruled against Intelligent Design! Hooray for sanity! Teach religion in religion class, not in science class. In science class, we learn about theories which stem from the scientific method. Thank you.

I don’t usually post links to “funny shit” on this blog, but this is actually really brilliant:

Lazy Sunday (a.k.a. “The Chronicles of Narnia Rap”) from SNL’s Andy Samberg and Chris Parnell.

Basically, they did a really catchy gangsta rap about their trip to the movies (no spoilers, don’t worry). On the way, they drop references to chick flicks, squabble about their preferred PalmPilot mapping software, and brag about it like they’re the baddest-ass guys around. A must-see

I actually made a bit of a splash on YTMND with this one! If you ever played Metal Gear Solid for Playstation, you’ll “get” this one. If not, just enjoy the crazy ninja cats: http://surprisedcats.ytmnd.com/.

I don’t particularly like Morgan Freeman as an actor (all his roles are more or less the same character) but I practically crapped my pants when I read this.

“You’re going to relegate my history to a month?” the 68-year-old actor says in an interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes” to air Sunday (7 p.m. EST). “I don’t want a black history month. Black history is American history.”

Yes!!! A celebrity is brave enough and smart enough to proclaim that black history month is patronizing and persists racism. If that first quote wasn’t poignant enough, check out this even better quote:

Freeman notes there is no “white history month,” and says the only way to get rid of racism is to “stop talking about it.”

Yes!!!!!!!! I love you Morgan Freeman! People are so afraid of offending people that nobody was willing to admit that these “celebrations” of race are keeping racism alive and well… or maybe they just didn’t realize it? “Black history,” as Mr. Freeman says, is a part of American history just like “white history” was a part of American history. There is no white history month because white people dominate American history.

Having a black history month does not actually improve race-relations, it only serves to draw a boundary between black and white, where each race is distant and separate. Recognition for what your ancestors did should not make a difference to you here and now, no matter what your race. There is so much mixing of race these days, we might as well kiss the whole concept goodbye. We’re all human, so deal with it!

If you are living in constant fear of bird flu, the birds have already won…

I read this article about how Barak Obama is accusing the republicans of practicing “social darwinism” and it got me thinking… is that actually a bad thing? This curious choice of words refers to the practice of survival of the fittest in the social/political world. I think people will always practice social darwinism. Why? Because it works! It may not be fair, but it works. Beating someone up and robbing them works too, if you can get away without the cops finding you.

I guess I’ve got an ambiguous stance on the issue. Social survival of the fittest is what has infested politics for ages… these people get elected according to who can spend the most money and lie the most effectively and please the most people by whatever means necessary. It’s kind of a natural thing about the way things go in the social realm, unfortunately. I wish politics were more about who was really most qualified to run the country (see this former post of mine), but it’s just not going to happen unless we have some kind of idealized dictatorship because the masses will never elect the most qualified person. There are lots of people who believe that what you get people to believe is more important than what you actually do. These are the people who keep politics the corrupt farce that is is today (I’m looking at you, conservatives) and I’m primarily blaming the voters, not the politicians!

Having heard why I’m against social darwinism, now listen to why I’m for it: because humans will never get past it… it’s just too effective and it’s impossible to prevent. We can (and should try to) make some laws that enforce some checks and balances, but gosh darnit people are not going to live that way. Lying and deception and politics will be around until the end of time.

Here’s the compromise: Let’s acknowledge that “social darwinism” isn’t going away and try to deal with it responsibly… let’s keep those checks and balances honest. Somehow our current government has become so corrupt that nearly all those checks have bounced and most of the balances are completely off. See this insightful article on Slate for some interesting ideas about how it got that way. We need to somehow restore accountability to the government and make sure that it can’t get as corrupt as it currently is. I am not a government scholar so unfortunately I don’t have any specific ideas. If someone wants to help me understand this issue, please comment.

Also some final food for thought: Is Obama trying to use the word “darwinism” as a derogatory term? It sure seems that way. Kinda risky I think, since us scientific folks are supposed to be supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution.

A great story about teamwork and chasing the dream, during the game scenes you will feel like you’re on the ice with the guys!

I was in Austin Texas for a conference about Sakai from Tuesday through Friday. I had a very good time! I’m pleased to report to the rest of the world that Austin is not at all like the common conception of Texas (you know what I mean). My friend Bruce who lives there described Austin as “The bastion of free thought in Texas”. People there barely have any distinguishable accents and hardly anyone was wearing cowboy hats! I ate like a king and I will not soon forget the food. Unfortunately I didn’t get the chance to see any live music except for the awful country-western band they hired for one evening at the conference.

So… if you happen to have the opportunity to go on an all-expenses-paid trip to Austin, by all means go!

We’re all aware that some jobs are more people-related than others, but I think many people-people are mystified by the other end of the job spectrum.

I think of this spectrum as a combination of three vague groups (i.e. not discrete): Group #1 consists of people who invent, discover, or create (Engineers, Computer Programmers, Scientists, Researchers). Group #2 consists of people who work within a particular medium (Athletes, Painters, Musicians, Actors, Cooks). They may be “creative” but they are not really breaking any new ground (those who are lie somewhere between groups 1 and 2). Group #3 consists of people whose primary work involves people (Politicians, Coaches, Secretaries, Salespeople).

As a computer programmer, I deal primarily with a program compiler or interpreter which follows a strictly defined set of rules. My job is to describe to it how I want the program to function. In doing this, I am creating a functional entity: the computer program. I’ve “invented” it in the sense that I put it together from thousands of pieces and it is unique. A similar thing can be said for engineers and scientists who develop new technologies: they have discovered new ways to utilize the physical properties of something or other and they have created functionality by putting that understanding to use. These kinds of jobs involve dealing with the physical world, and therefore everything they do stems from their honest perceptions and understandings of that world. In this line of work, one cannot accomplish your task through any social or cultural methods or manipulations such as asking, begging, ordering, seducing, convincing, bribing, complaining, working out a deal, etc. You cannot “ask” a wire to transmit a signal… praying for your bridge design to hold up will not make it any stronger… you cannot “seduce” water into boiling… you cannot “bullshit” your way past a program compiler (paraphrasing Anders). As a result, this line of work requires intense conscious effort and frequent self-monitoring.

The second group are people who may work directly with physical objects and mediums, but the merits of their performance or their product is either partially subjective or subject to psychological perceptions. People such as painters, actors, and musicians produce work which is of subjective merit: some people may like it and others may hate it. It may have some “true” measure of merit, but it won’t be true for everyone. Athletes and cooks do work which is subject to people’s perceptions. Any athlete knows that psychology is an important factor, whether it is a team sport or a race. Likewise, when somebody eats food prepared by a chef, their enjoyment is partly psychological.

The third category is people who are in the “people business”. Most of what they do regards other people, and therefore their success requires them to be familiar with (consciously or subconsciously) a large amout of social skills and knowledge. This kind of work is not measureable or objective. It might be measured in dollars generated, but there are no measures which do not rely on subjective opinions. This line of work is much more instinctive, subconscious, and human than the first group’s. Many people in this line of work don’t have a calculated strategy, but rather they have developed a natural talent.

I feel that people who excel at “people” work would probably not do well in jobs on the other end of the spectrum because they are probably accustomed to relying partially on social skills and a particular personality affect in order to get their goals met. On the other hand, as much as I would like to say that programmers could be good salespeople, I don’t think that’s the case. Programmers would probably only be good at selling things to other programmer-types because we want to see different things in an ad than people-people do.