The Rage of the LEGO Minifigure

LEGO minifigures are getting angrier and fighting more, according to CNN.

New research by robot expert Christoph Bartneck at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand shows the number of happy faces on tiny LEGO figures is decreasing.

“We cannot help but wonder how the move from only positive faces to an increasing number of negative faces impacts on how children play,” he said in a statement.

First of all, a “robot expert” who researches LEGO toys in New Zealand sounds like the greatest job in the universe. I’m sure there’s a drawback somewhere.

Second, I cannot help but agree. For years now, I have noticed that my excitement over LEGO has steadily decreased. I attribute this to two factors: (1) the gradual loss of my sense of childlike wonder, and (2) the fact that LEGO has, quite literally, sold out. It began with the Star Wars tie-ins for the release of Phantom Menace in 1999, which I thought was pretty awesome at the time. Now it has reached a new low point, in my opinion—at least based on this Lone Ranger tie-in I saw at Target the other day:

Taken at Target in Austin, Texas, July 18, 2013

Note the Johnny-Depp-as-Tonto minifigure.

Gone are the days when LEGO minifigures were happy, no matter what you made them do: Continue reading

Share

LEGO My House!

Hypothetical LEGO structures are much more fun for me now, as a grownup, than actual LEGOs. I learned this at LEGOLAND in San Diego a few years ago, as I stood impassively, or at least unimaginatively, in front of a quantity of LEGOs that, had I been 8-9 years old, might have inspired the early onset of puberty. (Don’t get me wrong: LEGOLAND was all kinds of awesome, but it just didn’t inspire youthful creativity in me the way it might have in the ’80s.)

LEGO technology has advanced considerably since the pinnacle of my LEGO constructions, which was around 1985-86. Back then, if you wanted a horse, you built a damn horse out of bricks. If you wanted a cave troll, you sure as shit didn’t have this:

© LEGO, via amazon.com

© LEGO, via amazon.com

Anyway, in the realm of hypothetical LEGO models, I can’t think of anything cooler than my own house, built entirely out of LEGO bricks.

Okay, that’s not true. A full-scale LEGO model of the Star Destroyer Executor would be much, much cooler than my house.

Kraken optional (Ochre Jelly [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0], on Flickr)

Kraken optional (Ochre Jelly [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0], on Flickr)

As it currently stands, though, I’m stuck with the hypothetical model of my house.


Lego My House by Movoto

I don’t have access to 11,647,240 LEGO pieces, nor to the roughly $1,164,724 I’d need to procure that many pieces. I’m definitely never getting that Star Destroyer, alas.

Photo credit: Cave troll © LEGO, via amazon.com; Release the KR-KN! by Ochre Jelly [CC BY-NC-ND 2.0], on Flickr.

Share

Game of Thrones and “Justice”: Nope

From the "Lady Sansa ღ" page on Facebook

From the “Lady Sansa ღ” page on Facebook

In life, the monsters win.
A Game of Thrones, Chapter VI

There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man.
Chapter XIV

If we have learned anything from Game of Thrones (the books or the TV series), it is this: the seemingly noble qualities of justice and mercy can have dire, even deadly consequences. (Spoilers ahead.)

I knew the Red Wedding scene was coming from the moment the show started its run in 2011, but I can still say I was surprised that the show presented it in such a brutal manner. The addition of Talisa, a character who does not appear in the books, as well as the news of her pregnancy, added an element of brutality absent even from the books. Much of the reaction I have seen (from people who did not know that the Red Wedding was coming) has focused on bemusement, or even rage, that the show would kill off its main character, Robb Stark.

I have two thoughts in response to that sentiment: (1) Have you learned nothing from the death of Ned Stark? That was not a narrative outlier. (2) Why assume Robb Stark is the central character, or hero? Continue reading

Share

This Week in WTF, June 7, 2013

3556826420_d006ae707e_oI return to my hallowed tradition of collecting oddities for the enjoyment of my reader(s). These are sort of some “greatest hits” collected over the past few months, but “This Past Six Months in WTF” doesn’t sound as good as “This Week…” Just go with it.

– The female southern bottletail squid was the topic of some discussion this week after io9 revealed that she, uh………swallows.

– A Chinese real estate company came up with a novel way to sell properties, by painting the floor plans on the backs of women in bikinis. Apparently, it’s working (h/t Sallie).

Via bitrebels.com [Fair use]

Via bitrebels.com

– A Ukrainian woman sought political asylum in the European Union because of persecution due to her participation in the adult film industry. To be clear, the woman, who performed under the name Wiska, claimed that the government was persecuting her because of her involvement, which she contends was based on economic need, not direct coercion. She faced criminal charges in Ukraine and possible loss of her children. The Czech Republic denied her asylum application, but she announced that she intended to appeal. The protest group Femen, which consists of topless Ukrainian women, is supporting her.

– A county employee in Dallas offered perhaps the best excuse in the history of the universe for being late to work: Continue reading

Share

Not in Defense of M. Night Shyamalan

The new M. Night Shyamalan movie, After Earth, is apparently quite a stinker, according to reviews. A notable feature of the film’s marketing is that the producers seem to want to downplay, or at least not highlight, the fact that Shyamalan directed it, instead focusing on the Will/Jaden Smith father/son starring duo. I don’t have much interest in seeing the movie, largely due to the absurd premise regarding evolution, but I am intrigued by how the movie’s release is sparking some retrospection about Shyamalan’s movies.

Scott Meslow at The Week had the following to say:

It’s logical — but somehow vaguely disheartening — that Shyamalan is now embarking on the career for which he was probably always more qualified: Not as a distinctive and idiosyncratic director in the vein of Alfred Hitchcock, but as a Renny Harlin or a Louis Leterrier — a director who’s just talented enough to add some verve to an otherwise undistinguished studio picture.

I don’t find it disheartening, because while I think Shyamalan’s movies (aside from The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable) have generally been sub-par, I think the primary criticism of him has missed the mark.

You knew this scene was coming, but admit it, it still scared the *&$%*!@# out of you (via kent-informationoverload.blogspot.com).

You knew this scene was coming, but admit it, it still scared the *&$%*!@# out of you (via kent-informationoverload.blogspot.com).

I’ll start off with something I think Shyamalan does exceedingly well, which is his direction of “jump scenes,” i.e. scenes that startle or shock you, such that you jump out of your seat. Shyamalan can broadcast, sometimes for minutes in advance, that a jump scene is coming, and the audience still jumps (or is at least meaningfully startled.) The scene with the kid and a barfing ghost (played by a young Mischa Barton) in The Sixth Sense comes to mind, although the best example is probably the “alien in the pantry” scene in Signs. He may be best suited as a director of action or suspense films written by others, as opposed to an auteur from whom everyone expects certain signatures.

Here’s where I think the criticism of Shyamalan’s movies is off-base: Meslow remarks on “Shyamalan’s over-reliance on twists,” but I don’t think he relies on twists at all. I think people came to expect twists from him after The Sixth Sense and, to a lesser extent, Unbreakable, and when no “twists” presented themselves, people assumed he just did a bad job at presenting the twist. The effort to force Shyamalan’s films into a “plot twist” model turned people against him, through no particular fault of his own. This is unfortunate, because most of his movies (at least the ones I have seen) stink for reasons unrelated to the question of plot twists. Spoiler alerts from here on out. Continue reading

Share

Cell Phones: Making International Intrigue Less Gripping Since the 1990’s

(Written in October 2012, not published until now.)

After watching Argo, the new thriller about a daring rescue during the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-80, I could not help but ponder how different the story would have been had any of the characters had cell phones. (SPOILERS AHEAD!!!)

For starters, those Iranian guards at the airport would have had to do far less running. If I had to guess, I would say about 40% of the dramatic tension of the film was related to someone trying to call someone else on the phone, but that person had stepped away for one reason or another. Argo is practically a collaborative commercial for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon.

"This guy is going to go to Val Verde with you, and he's going to call us every 20 minutes from the in-flight phone. So don't even think about breaking his neck, covering him with a blanket, and sneaking off the plane during takeoff." (Via theoneliner.com.)

“This guy is going to go to Val Verde with you, and he’s going to call us every 20 minutes from the in-flight phone. So don’t even think about breaking his neck, covering him with a blanket, and sneaking off the plane during takeoff.” (Via theoneliner.com.)

At any rate, modern technology has rendered more than a few classic films moot. Had Sully possessed a cell phone in the 1985 epic Commando, then the chase scene that provided much of the film’s backbone (prior to the final mass carnage montage, of course) would have been unnecessary. Rather than run to find a pay phone with Schwarzenegger on his tail, he could have texted “kill girl” to the other bad guys, and the movie would have been over within the first 45 minutes.

Here are some other films made redundant by cell phones:

Share

Game of Thrones, for Those Who Don’t Like the Violence and Drama and Stuff

0c9bf7edd25d12bc2fa1d96bf3411f1d_large

Via eclecticbooksandmovies.blogspot.com

Game of Thrones offers something for a wide range of tastes, from intricate and interconnect plots, palace intrigue, and uncomfortable romance; to swordfights and zombie battles; to, let’s face it, boobs.

Someone went an edited together all of the nude scenes from the first two seasons (NSFW and with spoilers, of course). It does a good job of demonstrating that not all on-screen nudity is good nudity. Daenerys’ early scenes with Khal Drogo come to mind. Also, it’s almost entirely female nudity, and while that might be more my thing, it’s pretty darn unfair. As I recall, towards the end of season 1 there was a brief scene in Winterfell’s godswood with Osha admiring Hodor’s, um, hodor, and I think maybe some almost full-frontal of Theon Greyjoy, but considering that Roz almost never wore clothes in any of her scenes, it ends up pretty lopsided. There’s a pun in there somewhere.

This is also reflected in George R.R. Martin’s writing, which delves into the creepy-sexy quite a bit. The guy talks a lot about nipples.

I’m not sure if the video will embed in WordPress, so if you can’t see it below, click here.

Share

Health, Preventive Surgery, Boobs, and Other Things That Are None of My Dang Beeswax

angelina-jolie-breasts-0514-27-580x435

Via thesuperficial.com

I gotta run. They’re doing a breast reduction on 3, and I want to get up there to try and stop it. You know what I’m talkin’ about!
Todd, Scrubs season 2 episode 15, “His Story”

So about Angelina Jolie’s preventive double mastectomy. The reaction seems to range from “this is none of my business” to “how very brave of her” to “NOOOOOOOOO, BOOOOOOOOOOOBS!!!!!!!!!” To one degree or another, these are all fair reactions.

None of My Business: This is by far the best reaction, because people’s personal medical decisions should be just that—personal. Still, Angelina Jolie has lived much of her life in the public eye, and whether she likes it or not, people will take notice of her decisions.

Courage: Angelina Jolie is not like most famous people in Hollywood. I’ve never quite been able to put what I mean in words, and I’m not sure anyone else has either. She is beyond doubt a talented actress and an all-around good human being, but she brings something to all of her movies that overpowers everyone and everything else on screen. This manages to make even her not-very-good movies (e.g. Taking Lives) memorable, and makes her the most noticeable part of movies where she plays a bit part (e.g. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.) Even when she’s doing something silly, people take notice en masse. It’s a unique combination of beauty and gravitas, for lack of a better description.

This makes her an ideal spokesperson for various causes, and she can’t seem to help but be a role model. Of course, much of the media attention she has received over the years has focused on her lips and other……attributes. She is and will still be a phenomenally beautiful woman, but there is a bold element to her decision. She may or may not have intended this, but she is basically daring people to assess whether this will affect her entertainment career.

Her mother died of cancer in 2007. She had an eighty-seven percent chance of developing breast cancer, a chance which is now much lower. She has six children, all of whom now have a greater chance of seeing their mother grow old.

Boobs: Let’s just say it. Angelina Jolie had fantastic breasts. I think it is okay to lament the world’s loss, given that it was, is, and will aways be a breast owner’s decision what to do with them. We may think of this as the loss of a great American treasure, but it is not the same as, say, the loss of the Old Man of the Mountain. That was a public trust. These were somebody’s body parts. Let us say no more about them, except to celebrate someone’s courage to take whatever control she could of her own health.

Wait, There’s More! Joe Patrice at Above the Law has a piece on the gene that led to Jolie’s decision, BRCA1. The only test capable of detecting the gene is patented, and therefore very expensive. This means that people like Jolie, who have resources, can get the test, while millions more cannot. Even after the Affordable Care Act takes full effect, “grandfathered” plans may not have to provide coverage for the test. This may change, though, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the issue of the patentability of human genes in a few months in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

And a Little More: It is impossible to Google Angelina Jolie’s name without quickly venturing into NSFW territory. Here’s an NSFW GIF of her taking off her shirt. Thanks for reading my blog.

Share

SXSW 2013 Diary, Day 2 (March 9, 2013)

[Typed on an iPad with minimal proofreading.] Since it was a Saturday, I could use my fiancee’s parking pass downtown. No bus for me!

I almost immediately regretted trying to drive downtown. I got one of the last parking spaces on the roof of the garage, which I only obtained after a lengthy process of abruptly stopping to avoid rear-ending the driversnwho seem to think that you must close every 10-foot gap between you and the car in front of you at 20 mph or more.

Te first session I attended was entitled Tweets from the DMZ: Social Media in North Korea with Jean H. Lee, AP Bureau Chief for North Korea. While there was some interesting “slice of life” information about a Seoul-based journalist’s regular trips to North Korea, it mostly consisted, quite literally, of screenshots of tweets she has sent. I learned some interesting stuff, though. She said that the regime never stops her from taking pictures, but they always know what she is doing. They try to make sure she is “respectful” to her subjects more than almost anything else. South Korea has very strict limits on access to online material from the north. It is apparently illegal in South Korea to access North Korean websites, and the government has a strict firewall in place. It is illegal even to retweet something from North Korea. People in South Korea, she said, must be careful even following people in North Korea. North Korea has a few government-run sites, including Flickr, Twitter, and Instagram. The main goals of these government-run social media sites are propaganda, getting pictures of the leader out, etc. One person, during questions, basically suggested that she was a dupe of Pyongyang, doing their bidding by presenting their side of things, but she disputed this. He even suggested that North Korean agents might be in the room keeping eyes on her. She responding by inviting any North Koreans in the room to stand up and say hello. No one did, and I decided that would be a good time to leave.

Last year, I met some interesting people in the Samsung Blogger’s Lounge, so I headed there next. Let me try to be charitable here……while I recall that they used the room last year both to give bloggers a place to work and socialize and to do webcasts of interviews with people who are “buzzing” at SXSW, this year the interviews were harder to ignore. Impossible to ignore, actually. The host of these interviews is probably a very nice person, but her style is, I dare say, not suited to any room where anyone is expected to pay attention to anyone except her. She’s bubbly, goofy, and loud, is all I’m saying. I was able to finish my Day 1 blog entry, but couldn’t hold a conversation with anyone for long.

I hesitated to attend the next panel, for pretty basic social reasons of taboo and embarrassment. I’m glad I did, because it was one of the best sessions I’ve attended at any conference, ever. Not just because the presenter, Cindy Gallop, has an awesome British accent. The session was entitled The Future of Porn, and the line to get in extended out of the ballroom quite a long way. (She noted that nearly everything she was going to say in her talk could be a double entendre, andit was good to get that out of the way.) This was not a discussion of smut per se. In fact, she maintains that the sites she created, MakeLoveNotPorn.com and MakeLoveNotPorn.tv, are not porn, but “real world sex.” I’m just going to paste some things from my notes (shout-out to Evernote here):

  • What happens when you combine easy access to porn online with societal reluctance to discuss sex at all?
  • MakeLoveNotPorn compares porn world to real world. Led to TED Talk in 2009.
  • Not anti-porn. Issue is lack of honest conversation about sex in the real world.
  • Social media platforms generally won’t deal with sex. She wants to “socialize sex.” Launched MakeLoveNotPorn.tv, where people can submit their own videos of real sex. Site is curated, so it’s not like YouPorn. $5 submission/curation fee, $5 rental fee for 3 weeks unlimited viewing, 50% of revenue shared with submitters. The “Etsy of Sexy.”
  • Not porn, not “amateur.” They are #realworldsex. Community tells them what real world sex is.
  • Real world sex is funny, while porn sex is “earnest.” Sexual equivalent of “America’s Funniest Home Videos”
  • Real world sex is messy. Porn is “clean,” i.e. hairless, and you never see lube. No sex during periods [Ed. note: no judgment here. Whatever floats your boat.].
  • Real world sex is responsible. Porn either doesn’t have condoms, or they magically appear. More condom use if it seems sexy.
  • “Lazy person sex” – after long day, really tired, but horny. Don’t want to lift a finger to get off. No representation of that in porn or other media.
  • Thumbnails & copy are all SFW, so no one has to slam down the laptop when someone walks by.
  • You can make personalized playlists, send them to people. Lets you tell people what you like w/o awkward conversations [Ed. Note: I don’t get how this is less awkward than talking, necessarily, but what do I know?].
  • Could be the “Kinsey of today.” Had to design in-system scoring that is easy to use and one-handed. You hit the space bar to say “yes!”
  • Porn industry has been supportive. Gen Y in porn has reached out to her (entrepreneurial, ambitious, want to be part of the “new world order” of things.)
  • They’re not competing with porn. Most porn labeled “amateur” isn’t.
  • One viewer told her “Porn makes me want to jerk off. Your videos make me want to have sex.”
  • No bank in the U.S. will work with her because “porn” is in the name. No mainstream payment processor would work with her. Finally got PayPal challenger Douala (?) on board, had to go with a European bank and payment processor.
  • Porn is falling prey to the same dynamics as the music and publishing industries. Businesses play it safe by doing what everyone else is doing. Porn’s way of dealing with it is more controversial.
  • ***”It’s not that porn degrades women. It’s that business degrades porn” Pushing any business into the shadows enables bad things to happen. She’s trying to change the world through sex, make sex better for everybody. Business world is trying to stop her. She says the business world is driven by men who believe men are their target audience. She listed women entrepreneurs who are doing great work (Nina Hartley, etc.) “Women challenge the status quo because we are never ‘it.'”
  • She listed a few other products or sites she felt were worth mentioning:
  • Vibease – device for couples in LTRs.
    Offbeatr – website for sex projects
    They Fit – custom-made condoms, no FDA approval in the US
    Bang with Friends – launched about a month ago.

  • Average age of first seeing hardcore porn online today is 8. They don’t necessarily go looking for it.
  • Less than 5% of parents, she says, ever talk to their kids about sex. The talk has changed, as it needs to include discussion of what shows up in porn.
  • Legalities: 2 forms of ID, “no children, no poop, no animals.” Brought in adult industry lawyers to help.
  • Protecting privacy and IP: members-only site, no way to guarantee no piracy, though. They review everything submitted to the site before posting it. They remove videos on request if a couple breaks up.
  • Finance: adult industry-specific companies, payment processors, etc. She wants business partners who get their mission. AI-specific processors think they’re just porn, have extortionate rates. Even they though MLNP was too risky. Company like Manwin has $$$, has easier time with banking.
  • None of their videos have an “extraneous” cameraman. Spouse might record other spouse, or person might use webcam.
  • Difference between porn and sex ed. Teachers have asked to use MLNP dot com in their sex ed classes. So few people are willing to stand up for these issues, that everyone wants Cindy to do all of it.

A couple of questions stood out. Someone eventually asked if Cindy appears in any of the videos on her site. Less predictably, the questioner was a woman, and the question was asked very earnestly (as opposed to a pervy manner). A mother of teenagers got up and described how her kids have used the family computer to access adult content. She is worried about the false impressions they will get about sex, and so asked about how to use the MNLP video site to give her kids access to more realistic, perhaps even “educational” material. Mom of the Year? Quite possibly.

I could write for weeks about everything I think is wrong in the way we deal with the issue of sex. It’s prety screwed up in most of the world, but I’ll focus on the U.S. Her opening statement summed it up very well, though: we have unprecedented access to “adult” material, and not just through porn, but through an overall sexualization in our culture. At the same time, we still lack almost any ability to discuss it like rational adults, and we still attach ridiculous forms of stigma to people regarding sex. This applies to people who have sex a lot (cf. Sasha Grey), people who don’t have it at all (cf. Lolo Jones), and everything in between. And that’s only covering the conventionally-attractive young white woman demographic. Don’t get me started.

I went to a 15-minute session on copyright law after that. Blah blah fair use and so on. Then I went home to assemble more IKEA furniture.

Share

“So here is us, on the raggedy edge.”

74210_388516161231304_138690876_n

Via Firefly Fans on Facebook

Come a day there won’t be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don’t push me, and I won’t push you. Dong le ma? -Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity (2005)

The final episode of Firefly to air on network television aired ten years ago today. Although it was the eleventh episode Fox showed, “Serenity” was actually the two-hour pilot. Among the many flaws in Fox’s treatment of Firefly, it showed those eleven episodes completely out of order.

I remember watching that day, December 20, 2002. The episode had an odd feeling of completion, as if they were ending the story of Serenity’s crew by showing us the beginning. Not everyone’s beginning, of course, just Simon, River, and Shepherd Book. We got to see a bit of the origin of Serenity’s crew in the episode “Out of Gas.”

Reams of virtual paper have been dedicated to pondering Firefly‘s demise. I doubt I can add much of substance to the discussion that hasn’t been screamed into the abyss a thousand times before. Fox gave Joss Whedon and the brilliant cast and crew the opportunity to create fourteen episodes, plus a feature film, that stands out as one of the truly great iconic science fiction stories (I’m trying to avoid hyperbole, but this show is just plain fucking good, okay?)

If there is any sort of silver lining to Firefly’s short, yet brilliant, burst through our culture, it is this: unlike so many other great shows, it never had a chance to get bad.

Share