Book review: Amusing Ourselves to Death

This is a tricky review to write because I’m having a very bad time finishing this book. Indeed, while it did start well, and I was actually interested in the idea behind the book, it easily got nasty, in my mind. But let’s start from the top, and let me try to write a review of a book I’m not sure I’ll be able to finish without feeling ill.

I found the book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, through a blog post in one of the Planets I follow, and I found the premise extremely interesting: has the coming of the show business era meant that people are so much submersed by entertainment to lose sight of the significance of news? Unfortunately, as I said the book itself, to me, does not make the point properly, as it exaggerates to the point of no return. While the book has been written in 1985 – which means it has no way to know the way the Web changed media once again – it is proposed to be still relevant today in the introduction as written by the son of the author. I find that proposition unrealistic. It goes as far as stating that most of the students the book was told to read agreed with it — I would venture a guess that most of them didn’t want to disagree with their teacher.

First of all, the author is a typography snob and that can be easily seen when he spends pages and pages telling all the nice things about printed word — at the same time, taking slights at the previous “media” of spoken word. But while I do agree with one of the big points in the book (the fact that different forms makes discourse “change” — after all, my blog posts have a different tone from Autotools Mythbuster, and from my LWN articles), I do not think that a different tone makes for a more or less “validity” of it. Indeed this is why I find it extremely absurd that, for Wikipedia, I’m unreliable when writing on this blog, but I’m perfectly reliable the moment I write Autotools Mythbuster.

Now, if you were to take the first half of the book and title it something like “History of the printed word in early American history”, it would be a very good and enlightening read. It helps a lot to frame into context the history of America especially compared to Europe — I’m not much of an expert in history, but it’s interesting to note how in America, the religious organisations themselves sponsored literacy, while in Europe, Catholicism tried their best to keep people within the confines of illiteracy.

Unfortunately, he then starts with telling how evil the telegraph was by bringing in news from remote places, that people, in the author’s opinion, have no interest in, and should have no right to know… and the same kind of evilness is pointed out in photography (including the idea that photography has no context because there is no way to take a photograph out of context… which is utterly false, as many of us have seen during the reporting of recent wars. Okay, it’s all gotten much easier thanks to Photoshop, but in no way it was impossible in the ‘80s.

Honestly, while I can understand having a foregone conclusion in mind, after explaining how people changed the way they speak with the advent of TV, no longer caring about syntax frills and similar, trying to say that in TV the messages are drown in a bunch of irrelevant frills is … a bit senseless. The same way it is senseless to me to say that typography is “pure message” — without even acknowledging that presentation is an issue for typography as much as TV, after all we wouldn’t have font designers otherwise.

While some things are definitely interesting to read – like the note about the use of pamphlet in the early American history that can easily compare to blogs today – the book itself is a bust, because there is no premise of objectivity, it’s just a long text to find reasons to reach the conclusion the author already had in mind… and that’s not what I like to read.

Hopefully it’ll go better with my next read.

My green fetish

Ok, maybe the post’s title is not the most safe for work I ever wrote but the content definitely is not anything wrong. And if you’re wondering why this post will be shorter than usual and with more grammar errors, that’s because I’m again using the tablet to write and my thumbs haven’t gotten used to the letters’ disposition. Taking the so-called Smart Cover out makes it much nicer to write on, by the way. Even if I am using the Tucano Magico cover that keeps it attached to the back by itself.

In the past month I decided that it was time to get a subscription to Sky, the satellite TV provider, once again. I dropped it when I “took over” the house, but nowadays I just wish to be able to watch something before sleeping, and in English if at all possible, and they make it possible indeed. Besides the obvious series, there is something I love to watch and that is the National Geographic programme World’s Greenest Houses.

The reason why I love it, is that it shows mainly how it can be possible to actually have a cool house, with all accessories and trimmings, and yet being energy efficient. Indeed, that is something I wish I could do in my house as well. The obvious first problem of course is the money needed to do the work, and of course most of the houses they show were built since the start with green in mind, rather than adapted from a built, living house.

Okay, I maybe it also tickles that part of me that used to create new scenarios and buildings in his unofficial Ultima OnLine shard, which is likely the same one that likes to play with The Sims 3.

There is, unfortunately, something that airs from time to time in the same slots, with the same title, in Italian at least, but that shows a “challenge”. Said challenge is a more Big Brother alike programme, where two families take forced steps into what they define green living. While the target is indeed a greener life, I dislike this one with all my heart. For two main reasons: the first is that the whole point of going none to 100% is the kind of challenge that most people will look away from ever picking up; the second is that I think the authors are not into Green at all!

Indeed the one episode I tried to watch, I had to change channel disgusted right at the first ad break. Why, you ask? Well, in the teasers, they show the little child of one family on the verge of crying, as the parents tell him or her (sorry I forgot) that they would have to “cancel his birthday”, as they were forced by the programme not to use their car. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a huge fan of cars either, heck I don’t even have a driving license, but that simple sound bite is so negative…

Okay, possibly the rest of the episode would show the family overcome the difficulty, either by planning a different kind of birthday party or by organising something that would use public transports or bikes… But let’s be honest, do you find such a tease before the ad break positive at all?

I’m not sure if the child in that episode overcame the scare of the “bad green”, but I’m wondering if other kids were to watch part of that episode, what would their impression of green be? And honestly, if I were to let my nephew watch something on TV beside the cartoons he watches every day, World’s Greenest Houses, the classic variant, would be my first choice. If nothing else he would see that if can be cool to help the environment. But especially considering how difficult is for most children I can think of, including me and some of my friends when we were young, to watch a show till the end, I’m afraid the challenges noted before would do nothing but scare them away…

To be honest I think that most of my personal feeling toward green have to find their source in the Walt Disney Italia comics, with their scouts knockoff… Thus why I feel that kids should be shown that you can be green and cool at the same time.

Ah well… To conclude I would also like to point out that similar scare tactics are applied more or less the same way with free software. To you to see if you can see the parallel, and agree or not with me…

Gaming can be seriously cool

Sometimes I wonder how did I spend my childhood considering I was never much of a gamer. While my classmates spent most of their days playing Baldur’s Gate, Quake 3 or GTA, I’ve spent time playing only RTS (and not so many), and Ultima OnLine (if you were an Italian player and you played on Dragons’ Land or Heaven, you might know me as GM Eorl or GM Unicorn). I’ve re-discovered playing basically just last year when I bought the Nintendo DS, as a stress relieve…

I have to say, I start to think that if I did try to play more in the past years, I might have spared myself the stress-caused pancreatitis. But you can’t change the past, I can only try not to fall into that again.

Anyway, tonight I finally tried Devil May Cry 4, and I have to say Mark was right: it’s cool. Nothing less than I expected from CAPCOM actually. One of the few games I can say marked my teens is absolutely Street Fighter Alpha 3 (I was unbeatable with Chun-Li), and through emulation I did love a lot of classic CAPCOM games. One thing they share, they have splendid character designs, and they tend to make combat like a dance. DMC4 brings this to an epic point.

I’ve tried just the first three missions, but the gameplay makes it very clear that I’ll have a lot of hours of fun in the near future ;)

And this makes it difficult for me to choose what to play between that and Genji, which I paid very little for the quality of the game I’ve seen up to now. If you’re a fantasy anime fan, you should really try it out. I think the last game which got me so much immersed was Throne of Darkness.

It’s relaxing me quite a bit sincerely, although now I think I’ll go back to watching The Weakest Link on BBC Prime before sleeping, tomorrow is a new long day, as I’ll be going to look for a (quite expensive I’m afraid) pair of bifocals. I read way too much during the day and I can’t really keep switching glasses all day long. By this pace I’ll have quite a few pair of glasses: one big pair with Transition lenses for going around (and for driving when I’ll get my license), one small pair, also with Transition lenses, so I can look cool when I’m around ;), a not-so-big pair with medium distance lenses for working at my workstation(s), a light pair for when I watch TV, the bifocals for when I’m going around the house, … how annoying!

To the rest of Gentoo developers with a PlayStation3… we should get together and find a game we can get a tournament running!

Sometimes one run is not enough

I mean an emerge run to install a system.

Now that both disks work fine, I finally started reinstalling Gentoo on my Enterprise. This involved creating a new LVM volume, extend the software raid so that the new disks are used, and finally take the stage3 and start the real work.

The real work was quite simplified by the fact that what I lost on the old disks was /usr/lib, mostly, so all the Portage configuration (make.conf and the /etc/portage directory) was still available to me, as well as the kernel configuration (to use as a base, as the kernel version changed on me, I last used .22 and now I’m upgrading to .23), and also the old world file.

I reduced the old world file actually, removing stuff that I installed just as a test, removing Kyocera’s PPD as they changed once again the packaging (and I can’t even find it on the US site, only on the Italian one.. and in a new multiple-language package, that will mean I’ll have to write a totally new ebuild for that), and removing kde-color-schemes that started spawning errors about kde-config.

The result was a single emerge command that installed about 800 packages, basically my whole world with all its dependencies, beside whatever was already in stage3.

Unfortunately there were a few breaks in the middle: the modules obviously failed, for the known buggy interaction between gcc, Linux .23 and sandbox, plus I found an ICE (probably caused by my borderline CFLAGS, I’ll have to investigate), a failure in MySQL (linux-headers related, says my guts), a missing dep on pmount, and yet another case of people using autotools without knowing how they work, mpeg4ip missing a few m4 files.

Anyway, if all goes well, the installation process should be completed in a few days, and then I can return working on Gentoo, cleaning up the PAM mess to begin with, and then starting on lighter stuff for a while, as I need to keep my workload way lighter than it was before, after what I passed in hospital.

At least last night I was able to sleep well, as I finally have the furniture for my room (even though there are a few glitches that will be solved next week) which means I can finally sleep alone, and in a decent bed.

And a note to self: double check the type of outlet you have on the wall for the aerial next time. Modern aerial outlets sold in Italy have a male connector, while in the past a female connector was used. The previous establishment allowed to swap the sides of the cable, like you do with EuroAV/SCART cables, HDMI cables and so on, but caused confusion for many people with VCRs’ cables (I know more than a few people confused by that). Unfortunately I was used to the old style, and bought two male connectors for the cabling, when I should have bought a female L-shaped connector. (For who’s wondering, it’s a IEC 169-2 connector.

Typecasting

I bet that you started reading this entry expecting to find some quite interesting technical discussion about C or C++ types and casts. Sorry, this is actually a vague, mostly useless and almost certainly boring post about another kind of typecasting .

This post stemmed from a discussion last night with a friend of mine, about the almost non-existent reuse of good actors for TV series (if you couldn’t tell, I’m quite a TV series kind of guy, rather than movie guy at least).

There are certainly a lot of good actors that worked on TV series in the past years, who hasn’t appeared since their respective series completed.

Star Trek is one of the gold mines of typecasting; the late DeForest Kelley and James Doohan never really overcame their typecast as “Bones” McCoy and Scotty; Leonard Nimoy come to the point to title his autobiographies I am not Spock and I am Spock. Patrick Stewart is a bit more lucky, as he’s now identified with Xavier from the X-Men movies (although I also remember him for the minimal part in Robin Hood: Men in Tights .. what I can say, I’m a Brooks fan). Two exception certainly are William Shatner and Rene Auberjonois, both starring in Boston Legal (although the author seems to either be a Star Trek fan, or is using the same exact cast agency, as you can also find the actors who interpreted Quark, Neelix and Seven of Nine as guest stars).

And more recent series like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Friends have the same problem too. Although Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alyson Hannigan and Michelle Trachtenberg had their own roles in many different movies and TV series after BtVS finished, they’ll probably remain for a lot of people just Buffy, Willow and Dawn. And they don’t seem to appear as regulars in any series for now. Similar fate for James Marsters (who I admit I haven’t seen in any other role yet). Jennifer Aniston got enough roles not to “just” be Rachel Green from Friends but still doesn’t appear regular in any series.

On the other hand, there are a few actors who got at least two main roles in two different series, this is the case of Richard Dean Anderson (MacGyver from the eponymous series and Jack O’Neill from Stargate SG-1), and Michael Weatherly (Eyes Only in Dark Angel and DiNozzo in NCIS), as well as Eliza Dushku who interpreted Faith in the above-mentioned BtVS and had the main role in Tru Calling (which was cancelled). These last two might have been somehow “lucky” that their show was cancelled, as they avoided the typecast trap. Or we might be the lucky ones (see later on this post).

In Boston Legal, beside James T. Kirk and Odo, there also is Candice Bergen, who portrayed Murphy Brown. That series is a nice way to show that actors will eventually come out of their typecast, if they live long enough: people will forget about them (how many people nowadays actually know who Candice Bergen is? I had to look it up, as I probably just seen her show zapping when I was a kid), and with a new generation they can take a new role.

But why do i care about this? There’s no actual reason, just I was wondering why couldn’t I see more often the protagonists of TV series I liked in the near past, and started thinking how many of them were stuck in typecasting. I feel a bit sorry for them, because often they have quite a lot of skill, but are left unused after a single role (that might be long enough). Although this might not be a great loss for them (they get to do other roles, too, and they certainly don’t end up on a street), it’s a loss for the viewers like me who would like to see them more often.

On the other hand, this is a total opposite to the Italian way of doing TV series: here the same actors are reused over and over and over, to the point you can’t really understand them well enough, as they are quite mixed one with the other. People like Marco Columbro, Elena Sofia Ricci, Gastone Moschin and so on, while good actors, ends up being so omnipresent that you just can’t get to like them after a while, even in the roles of the good ones. Sometimes, they are even seen on two different series at the same time. And it’s not a good thing.

Okay so sorry for this boring reflection, I hope you won’t mind its presence :)