Bryce Moore's Blog, page 288

The Wonders of Dropbox

[image error]

[Reprinted from my Library Blog]



Like
many of you, I hadn't made the plunge into online storage. I'd heard
about it, of course--that thing where you can sign up with a company and
they provide you with some space online for free, letting you store
files there. And if you paid them money, they'd let you store even
*more* files there. But I have a couple of Gmail accounts, and I get
free storage there. If I really needed to store something online, I
could just email it to myself, or upload it to Google Docs, and I'd be
able to get it when I wanted it.



Why would I want or need anything else?



Well, a friend invited me to Dropbox,
and my eyes have been opened. Dropbox is an ideal tool for sharing
files between computers (whether with yourself or collaborating on a
project with a friend or colleague), as well as for automatically
backing up important files.



Allow me to explain.



When
you sign up with Dropbox, they give you 2GB of storage space (plus
250MB more if you sign up using the helpful link above--aren't I nice?).
You install the Dropbox program on your computer, and then it acts just
like a typical folder. You can save files there, copy them there,
change them there--it all happens just as if you were saving and
altering your files normally. The trick is that when you make those
changes, Dropbox keeps a current copy of everything in your Dropbox
file--and they stick it online where you can access it from anywhere. So
if you write a big long paper on your laptop, but then you want to work
on it some more at school (and you don't have your laptop with you),
you just log on to Dropbox and are off and running.



What's
great is that it does all of this automatically. You don't have to
remind yourself to make a backup. Once you have Dropbox working, it runs
by itself. Beautiful.



It does wonders if you're
collaborating on a project with someone else and want to share files.
Yes, you could use Google Docs (which is a great collaboration tool).
But what if you want to view a bunch of pictures, or have access to a
number of files? You can share a Dropbox folder. Now, anything one
person puts in is seen by everyone else who shares the folder. You're
even notified when something changes or is added. Super convenient,
super easy.



Dropbox even has apps for iPhone, iPad,
Android, and Blackberry--so you can work on a document on your computer,
then go and access it on your iPad. No need to email it anywhere or
save it specially. It just works.



Anyway, I just
thought I'd take a moment to let you all know about the wonders of
online file storage. The fact that this is all free is mind blowing to
me. I've been using it for a good half year or so now, and I haven't
been plagued by spam--I haven't had a single speed bump.



What about you? Have you used a program like this before? Any thoughts or suggestions? Speak up!

The Next Three Days: Realism in Pop Culture

Denisa and I watched The Next Three Days last week, a movie that focuses on the efforts of a college English professor to free his wife from prison. It's directed by Paul Haggis (Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale) and stars Russell Crowe.



First off, the review in a nutshell: Fantastic movie. Three and a half stars, easy. One of the most intense suspense/thrillers I've seen in quite a while. We both really enjoyed it.



Now that that's out of the way, I can talk about what's on my mind. The premise (college English professor tries to free his wife from prison) could have gone in so many different directions. I mean, you could have a comedy with that premise, with the main character doing a series of idiotic things, only to keep making things worse. You could have an Oceans 11 sort of a romp, with the characters just being so darn brilliant that you as a viewer just sit back and enjoy them doing brilliant, witty things. Or you could have what this movie was: a white-knuckle ride where you have no idea what will happen next.



Why is that? Why can the same premise provide so many different levels of film? As I thought about it, I've decided it comes down to the degree realism is allowed to penetrate the movie's plot and script. In a comedy, there's going to be very little in the way of realism. Consequences will only pop up when they have a punchline. Audiences understand this, and so they don't usually get too irate when the comedy has something unrealistic in it. (Think Pink Panther movies) (This is actually one of the reasons I hate Life is Beautiful, the movie about the guy who tries to convince his son that the concentration camp they're in isn't so bad, after all. The movie has very little realism throughout it--until (SPOILER) he dies at the end. The movie's great, but the ending stinks--mainly because it wasn't a realistic movie, until they decide to sucker punch the audience at the end. Blech.)



But I digress.



The Next Three Days works as a thriller because it has very real consequences. We see quite clearly what will happen to Russell Crowe if his plans go wrong. He'll go to prison. He might be shot. His son will be an orphan. The stakes are very high. The realism and tension is further heightened by the fact that Crowe has no super powers. He's smart, but he has no underworld connections. He needs to get fake passports? Great. How in the world does he do that? I mean, how would *you* do it? If I suddenly needed some, I haven't the faintest idea how I would get them.



Crowe tries to solve his problem as best he can, with the resources available. It's easy to relate to him and put yourself in his shoes--as opposed to an action film, where the main character essentially becomes Superman, able to do incredible feats and only come out with a few bruises. One trick to having a successful movie (in my humble opinion) is to be consistent in the reality level. If Crowe were suddenly to reveal that he had ninja training (1/2 way into the movie), it would hurt the film a great deal. The movie is good because it forces Crowe to work the problem through with the resources he has available, and those resources are clearly defined right from the beginning.



Anyway. That's all I have time for now. Happy Columbus Day, everyone. :-)

[image error]

Watching Movies with Your Kids

It was a hard frost last night, and it's still pretty nippy out this morning, so I'm on my computer for the moment instead of outside scraping the garage. And that means I have a bit of time to blog, so I'm going to take it while it's here. One topic that I'd been wanting to write about for a while is on how to decide what movies to watch with your kids (or to watch at all, for that matter).



When I worked in Orem Public Library, we had a lot of people come in wanting movies. OPL has over 25,000 of the things, so it's a good place to go for some cheap entertainment. And a lot of those people would ask for recommendations. If you know me at all, you know I love giving movie recommendations--it was a great job in that aspect.



The only trick was that, since this was Utah County, I could never be completely certain what sort of a movie a particular person would find offensive. I got to be quite good at offering disclaimers. But even then, some people would be offended by something I totally didn't even think of as offensive. So I've decided that when you're particular about the content of movies that you choose to watch, it's best to be as exhaustive as possible. In other words, if you want to know how much "bad content" is in a movie, you don't ask someone regularly watches ever gore-infused horror movie that comes down the pike. You ask someone who's a stickler for details. And that person's role needs to be presenting the unbiased facts of the movie. It had this in it. And this. And this.



That sort of thing.



That's where kids-in-mind comes in for me. In a nutshell, this is a site that has people watch every new movie that comes out. They keep track of anything that might be even remotely offensive in the film, then rate it on a three part scale (violence, sex, and language). But they also provide descriptions of all the potentially offensive pieces of the movie, instead of just the rating. This is ever so much more useful than the arbitrary (and often crooked) MPAA ratings that get assigned to movies. (Don't get be started on those.)



Now, I'm not saying I go to this site before I watch any film. My own take on movies is different than many of my friends. But I do go here sometimes before I decide to take TRC with me to watch something. It's a bad feeling when you take your kid to a film you thought was going to be sweetness and light, and the poor guy ends up being terrified the whole time. (Ratatouille. Who knew a three year old would be that scared?) You know yourself and your family, and while there are probably some of you out there who don't need this site at all (or have any desire to ever use it), I'm also sure there are some of you who really have been looking for something like this.



Look no more.



Anyway--that's all I have time for today. It's above freezing out now, and I've got to go scrape something. Sound off in the comments--have you used kids-in-mind before? Something else? Think it's an awful travesty to do reduce a movie to sheer statistics like that? Speak up! And happy weekend, everybody.

No Post Today--Too Busy Scraping my Garage

Remember that scraping, sanding, and painting project I had going on last year? How the garage was supposed to get finished? Yeah. Since it's a whole year later, and part of it still isn't done, I've taken today and tomorrow off work, and I'm using the great Maine weather we're having to scrape like a mad man.

This is just to say that you might not see me much tomorrow, either. It's not because I don't love you all. Trust me--I'd much rather be blogging than scraping. But once this is done, I think I'll feel ever so much better about myself as a home owner.

Carry on.

Book Review: Terry Pratchett's Snuff

Terry Pratchett. The man's a living legend, and his Discworld series is one of the few works out there that proves humorous fantasy has a place in this world. At this point, reviewing his books is about as useful as giving a thumbs up to a work by John Grisham, right? So why bother with a review of his latest book, SNUFF?



Plenty of reasons.



First of all, some Pratchett fans out there might not be aware that he has a new book coming out. As a diehard Pratchett fan myself, I know I wouldn't want to miss one of his works just because I was too busy being distracted by other books at the moment...hey, it happens. But let's be honest: any serious Pratchett fan should already well aware of the latest book on its way. That said, Discworld has over 35 books in it, and that sheer number alone is the main reason I'm writing this review. There might well be fantasy readers out there who've heard of Pratchett, but have no desire to devote themselves to a 35+ novel epic. It'd be like tuning into Lost for the last three episodes, right? Wrong.



Pratchett's Discworld series is a series only insofar as it all shares the same globe, and some of the same characters. In reality, the series is cut into smaller chunks, with certain characters taking the lead role in certain books. Thus, you have the Witches books, the Death books, the Wizards, Tiffany Aching and the like. Fans have their favorite characters. I personally really like the Death books and the City Watch books, and so I'm really happy to report that SNUFF is a City Watch book.



[Reprinted from over at Elitist Book Reviews, where my review originally appeared earlier today. Read the rest of it over there.]

Apple's iPhone 4S, iCloud, iOS 5, and Various Other Numbers and Letters

(Reprinted from my Library Blog)



Apple had a big To Do over in California today to announce a heap of different things. As Apple is wont to do, it went on for quite a long time, and while some significant new pieces of hardware and info were introduced, the proceedings were much like an American Idol results show: lots of hype for 5 minutes of actual information. But I followed it so that you don't have to. Aren't I nice?



The highlights?


iOS 5 will be released a week from today. This lets enhances iPads and iPhones will all sorts of features, including the ability to sync your device without hooking it up to a computer. (Nice.) There are also camera enhancements, message tweaks, Twitter integrations--just a lot of nice extras. And it's free--always a plus.
iCloud--Apple's free(!) online storage space for iOS users. Your photos, documents, apps, music--all available anywhere you have an internet connection. For an additional small fee, you can access all your music, not just the stuff you downloaded from Apple. ($25/year--available by the end of October in the US.) This has the potential to be a real game changer. 5GB free, more for extra fee.
Find My Friends--A new feature that lets you broadcast your location out to people you've approved to be able to view it. Now all your stalkers can find you that much more easily. Thanks, Apple!
A new iPod Nano--Complete with updates and new features, like the ability to track steps and fitness right out of the box. Available today.
New iPod Touch--Now available in white. (Seriously--what's up with the obsession with white?)
iPhone 4S--Up to seven times as fast, longer battery life, iOS 5 and iCloud compatible. GSM and CDMA (meaning you can use it internationally, as well). Better phone (8MP, better light sensor). 1080p video recording. $200 for a 16GB phone. Launches in 10 days.
Siri--The ability on an iPhone to use voice recognition with natural language. Seems like it could be pretty cool, though I'll have to see it in action before I decide for sure. Voice recognition has been spotty in the past. I'll admit this looks like it has a lot of potential, however. Set up appointments, reply to messages, look up information--all hands free. But demos can look awesome and fizzle in practice. Just sayin' . . . Full voice dictation also available with this.
Vanilla iPhone 4 is now $100. iPhone 3GS is now free (with contract).

The impact of all this? Apple continues its domination in the world of mobile computing. More and more, whatever Apple does or doesn't do makes a huge impact on what the world does or doesn't do. I don't mean to overstate my case here, but when you look at sheer numbers and trends in technology, much of what goes on these days really comes back to Apple, whether as a response to Apple or a move by Apple itself. That's a lot of influence for one company to have.



Then again, in today's world of technology, the company that's on top of the pack one moment quickly finds itself slipping down. But for now, at least, Apple seems to be doing what it needs to to stay at the top.



Thoughts?

The Lightning Thief: When Good YA Fantasy Books Become Bad YA Fantasy Movies

Denisa and I watched The Lightning Thief last night, mainly because it arrived in the mail from Netflix, since I'd forgotten to bump it down in my queue. (My queue has since been updated.) I hadn't heard much good about this movie going in, so my expectations were low. Why did I watch it anyway? Because I loved the original book. It had a strong YA main character, with a first person point of view that kept things light and fun. I read it before most people had--before it became another "Next Harry Potter" candidate, so I felt a strong affinity for the book.



So . . . low expectations, big budget movie--usually a good combo for me to at least have a decent movie watching experience.



Not this time.



This move has almost everything you could ask for in a popcorn movie. Really good effects. Breakneck pace. Big stars (Uma Thurman, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Bean). A plucky trio of adventurers . . . what's not to like?



Two huge, Parthenon-sized problems. First off is the fact that no time is spent developing the main characters at all. They come across as little more than playing pieces in a board game, with all the complexity of a red Sorry token. In the book, the first person point of view saturates the entire novel, putting us on Percy's side and helping us root for him and like him as a character. That doesn't work in a movie. They needed to take some time to ground the characters before sending them off on a rollicking adventure. Again, in the book, a significant amount of time is spent at Camp Halfblood, as Percy learns more about the world and the magic. In the movie, the pace just never lets up. One minute Percy's finding out the Greek gods are real, the next he's taking all of ten minutes to become a master swordsman, and then he's off on a cross-country road trip. He's too busy having things done to him for us to get to know him. That's a big mistake.



The second problem is the way magic is used in the movie. Basically, whenever a problem needs to be solved, a new magic ability conveniently appears to solve it. Stuck fighting a hydra? Oh--Percy can summon water and make it do what he wants it to. Problem solved. I don't want to give any more examples (trying to avoid too many spoilers), but magic can't be used this way to provide satisfying climaxes. It just comes off as all too convenient.



In the end, I think what really sunk this movie was Chris Columbus's decision to recreate as many of the cool effects scenes from the book as possible. This is true to form. He did the same in Harry Potter I, and I thought that movie was weak, too.



Directors, take note: when adapting a YA fantasy, character counts. You can't gloss over it. Character comes before plot. Fans might be disappointed that you didn't include Tom Bombadil, but they'll be livid if you get Gollum wrong, or if Frodo comes across as too whiny. Make sense? Character before plot, no matter how much you feel like plot should come before character.


Character before plot.



One and a half stars for this one. Maybe two, if I'd been feeling generous. But I'm not.

Movie Review: Moneyball

Denisa and I went out to the movies last night (belatedly for my birthday, since the theater had been closed on the actual date). Our choice of film was pretty much made for us: due to scheduling constraints, it was Moneyball or nothing. (Well, that's not entirely true. We could have watched a few others, but if I'm going to pay money to go to the movies, it had darn well better be a good movie. The Help was too late, as was Contagion, and those were the only two others I would have considered yesterday. Typically, I wouldn't go to a movie in the theater unless it was one that's likely to be significantly better on a big screen than it will be at home. But I make exceptions now and then for birthdays.)



Anyway. Moneyball. I was a bit worried about this one as a date movie, since my wife is not only not into baseball, but not even American to boot. This would sort of be like me agreeing to go watch a movie in Slovak with no subtitles. I'd be likely to understand about as much as Denisa would in the wrong sort of baseball movie.



Thankfully, this one wasn't the wrong sort.



For those of you who don't know, Moneyball depicts the real life endeavors of Billy Beane (played by Brad Pitt), the general manager of the Oakland A's, who decided to try and put together an unorthodox group of players using the small budget he had available, in hopes that those unorthodox players would be able to take on the big guys like the Yankees or the Red Sox. (You know, like almost every other sports movie out there.) The difference in this one is the way Beane decided to assemble the team. He used statistics instead of scouts, choosing players for their numbers and not their overall feel. A pitcher's pitch looks really funky? So what, if it gets results. That sort of thing.



Denisa and I both really enjoyed the movie. It's got some genuinely funny scenes, it's well acted, and they're able to convey the basics of what's happening without requiring their audience to have an exhaustive knowledge of baseball. I think it succeeds in large part because it plays with the tropes of sports movies just about as much as it follows them. There are some scenes that are straight out of The Natural. Baseball certainly gets romanticized. But at the same time, Beane is essentially destroying some of the great traditions of baseball. Ignoring scouts to go with statistics, instead? Yikes!



It also helped that I think Bennett Miler (the director, nominated for an Oscar for his work on Capote) approached the movie not as a sports film, but as a film more along the line of Aaron Sorkin's The Social Network (Sorkin also contributed to the script of Moneyball). The movie is focused on Beane and his approach to baseball, not the team and their drive to win. It's an important distinction, and it affect the entire movie--most noticeably in the ending.



In any case, I heartily recommend the film. Good quality cinema, for baseball lovers and baseball neophytes alike.



Three and a half stars.

Yet Another Update in the Thrilling Saga of the Stairs

The stairs. The stairs! My life will be a better place once that staircase is finished, if for no other reason than the fact that I'll no longer need to remember that I really ought to be working on them right now. A fact that I'm reminded of every time I come home and see that big gaping hole.



What's happening with them? They're all stained, all sanded, all polyurethaned up. The walls up are. The electricity has been wired. All that's left is to




Cut and nail up the ceiling
Put in the risers
Put in the treads
Finish nailing the door frame
Poly the door frame
Put in the door
Put in the railing
Put in the light
Put in the light switches


Once that's all done, we still need to finish last year's project: scrape, sand and stain the two small sides of our garage. It sounds like a lot of work, but the end really IS in sight. At least, that's what I keep telling myself.




Has it been worth the time, trouble and expense? Well, hard to say at this point. I mean, the stairs aren't even finished yet. Even once they're done, they go . . . nowhere. The site of my future home office, my house's second bathroom, a walk-in closet, master bedroom, and loft. (Note: those are not all the same thing.) When I keep that goal in mind, then yes, it feels very good. Progress is being made.


Of course, that's like a 10 year goal. So . . . only nine years to go?




Here's some pictures to satisfy your curiosity in the mean time. First, what it looked like before we touched anything:




First hole sawed out:





Hole totally sawed out:




The risers:





The walls up, the treads in temporarily:

What's the Best TV Comedy?

Denisa and I recently decided to rewatch all of Arrested Development (well, I decided to do it. Denisa was kind enough to agree). And after the first five episodes, I'm reminded just why I loved this show so much.



It was always on. The jokes are all over the place, from sight gags to inside jokes to pop culture to self-referential to existential. Denisa and I debated for a while which recent show has been the best best comedy on TV. The candidates? 30 Rock, Modern Family, and Arrested Development. (Yes, you could make arguments for some others--particularly The Office, but realize at the same time that this was just a private conversation between Denisa and me, and neither of us are 100% behind The Office. I like the show, and I've binged watched it now and then, but in the end I never could stick with it. I just don't derive enough pleasure just from watching a man be a complete and utter idiot--probably because I relate to the character too much.)



Anyway, for me, Arrested Development still wins. 30 Rock has some hi-larious moments, as does Modern Family, but they both also have their share of so-so episodes that I could take or leave. Arrested Development is like a bullet train that never stops. Often I have to pause the show just so I can finish laughing and make sure I don't miss any more jokes.



It's extremely quotable, it has a good blend of characters without going overboard on them (allowing the writers to explore those characters more fully), the writing itself is rapid fire (something I've always preferred my comedy to be) . . .



It just wins.



But I got to thinking that maybe some of you would beg to differ. I love me my drama TV, but every now and then I want to just laugh and not be bogged down with Mad Men or 24 or Lost or whatever. So what are your all time favorite comedies and why? They can be from any time period--but they have to be as funny as possible. (Denisa and I keep going back to The Dick Van Dyke Show, which we also find highly entertaining.) Ideally, the show should be available to stream via Netflix, because I'd like some more Ol' Reliable shows to fall back on after I'm through with AD.



Thoughts?