Deception Point by Dan Brown

Do you remember Dan Brown? The guy that wrote The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons? He wrote a few other books as well, one of which I just finished, Deception Point. It was highly recommended to me by someone that put Brown on his "Best Authors" list after reading this. Perhaps it's just not my genre, but I didn't have the same reaction

Synopsis
A mysterious object is found in the arctic by NASA, during a pivotal point in the next presidential election. The daughter of The President's opposition goes to investigate the object, and verify its authenticity when she finds herself caught in a deadly power play by unknown persons.

The Review
For 700+ pages, the book is a quick read. It's not bad, but really it's not that good either. The story is shallow and predictable. It's a very simple read, and required very little thought on the part of the reader. That combined with pretty constant action lets you blow through it at record speeds.

What ultimately irked me about the book were what I've come to recognize as Dan Brown'isms. Elements of his writing style that I just don't enjoy. For starters, the first 100+ pages of the book it's like The Monster at the End of this Book. There's something so amazing, so spectacular, so thrilling, so earth-shattering that it will change the way you think about everything. You know what it is? Its so amazing that I can't tell you what it is. Sigh.


It was like Dan Brown was trying to add an element of suspense by making his characters act in unrealistic ways. They all knew what the amazing secret was, but no one would talk about it. They would just send you to the next person who also knew, but wouldn't talk about it. And when you learn the big secret, there's more (But no one can tell you what it is!).

The story consists of 3 secrets, What it is, who did it, and how they did it. The why they did it does not seem to be an afterthought of the story. Like someone read a first draft and said "But why?" so Dan Brown tossed 4 pages into the middle of the book to give motive, but really didn't care. The first secret of What it is, was more of a drag on the reader, because it wasn't a secret to anyone but the main character, and the reader.

Who did it? Well, I don't like to be the type of person that figures stuff out early in a book or movie. I prefer to feel surprised, over feeling clever. But this is one of those books where it just was too obvious who did it. And once you understand how Dan Brown writes, then it's even more obvious. When it came time for the big climatic reveal, I was bored.

Lastly, how they did it. Well all of that was based on something that doesn't exist in real life, nor did it exist in the book until the moment they figured out how it was done. In my opinion, this is a very lazy way to write. I don't need to feel clever and figure out a mystery early, but at the same time, I love when the clues are there, which are later revealed, and I can say, wow! Think for example if in The Sixth Sense, at the very end, the kid told Bruce Willis, "Oh, and you're an android." Huh? There's nothing in the movie to support this. Just accept it.

Another Dan Brown'ism I've come to recognize, and never liked it in any of his books is the way he writes women. All of his women are strong individuals (yay!) who when they come in contact with a man, instantly want to have sex with him, and become screaming little girls that can only be saved by a man.

The last Dan Brown'ism, is who the real villain is. I won't give away this formula so some people can enjoy his books with out all of them being ruined. But lets just say once you figured it out, it's the same in all of his books.

Now that I've finished ripping the book a new one, it's a quick decently fun book. It's no great work of literature, it's incredibly simple, but not a bore. I'll never read it again, nor will I ever read another Dan Brown book again (3 was enough), but I don't regret the time I spent reading it.

Is Taxation OK?

You hear a lot about taxes in the news, and I wanted to give my opinion to the nobody that reads this blog. At least I can get my ideas out there.

I don't have a problem with taxation, but I do have a problem with it in its current implementation.

Taxes need to be transparent.

In this age of technology, it should not be difficult for anyone to go online and track where every penny of their taxes goes. If its too complicated to track, then it should not be legal. The tax system as it is set up currently is purposefully complicated so money can be moved as used with out the American people's consent.

How much of your taxes are being used to fund the education of your children or improve the roads where you live? I bet you don't know, and I bet if you tried to find out, you couldn't. But shouldn't you know? If you pay $10,000 a year in taxes, and discover 3¢ of that goes to your child's education, while $4,000 of that goes towards developing a new stealth plane, wouldn't you want to know? Shouldn't you have the right to know?

Each year Americans are asked to vote on how their taxes should be spent. Prop A1 asks for $10 million to build a new railway station. Prop B2 asks to open a new prison. Prop C3 asks to increase a teacher's salary. But what do those numbers really mean? Is $10 million really a lot of money? It's more than I make in a year, but is it a lot to the state, county, or federal government? The answer is, I don't know! But shouldn't I? Shouldn't we be able to see that our elected government is spending our money wisely?

In short, a tax system that is not transparent limits the liberties of the people.

Vote with your wallet.

Continuing with that train of thought, if people can see exactly how their money is being spent, then they should also be allowed to vote with their wallet. Using the example above, I discover that 3¢ is going towards my child's education, while $4,000 is going towards the latest stealth plane. Well, I don't think that properly represents my priorities.

I should be able to adjust how my taxes are spent accordingly. I should be able to go online and alter my tax spending so $3,000 goes towards education, and $1,000 goes towards military research. What if someone disagrees with me though? My neighbor doesn't have any kids, and fears for the safety of the nation. He may look at my spending and think its wrong. OK, cool! Rather than get into a big argument about it, how about he go online and put $5,000 towards military research.

You know what? There's nothing wrong with that! My neighbor and I just voted with our wallets. Of the $20,000 that the government collected from us through taxation, $6,000 went towards military research, and  $3,000 went towards education, which represents the people's exact desire to contribute to each program. We have just voted to and compromised on how our tax money should be spent.

Think about it for a little, and the subtleties work out quite nicely. If one person really wants something that most others do no want, they don't have a larger voice quashing them. They can at least put what they want where they want to put it. If something is important to the people then it will be represented in their contributions.

But what about the scenario where I really want that stealth plane, and I believe strongly that with out it our nation is vulnerable to attack, while your contribution to saving the kittens is absolutely wrong! I mean with out a country, those kittens are doomed anyway. Under our current system, I could make a proposal, or try to put into law that my money and your money should go towards military research. The problem with that is it violates your liberties. No person should have control over another person. I should not be allowed to tell you how to spend your money.

Taxation for Social Change

This image was taken from a site advocating that people stop
smoking. I think it drives the point home. First add taxes to
cigarettes, making them more expensive, then tell people to
save money by not smoking.

Another way taxes are used, which I believe is wrong, is to encourage social change. One example of this would be the "Sin Tax." This is when the government wants to raise money for something, so they try to get people to stop (or start) doing something by changing the associated taxes.

You know, smoking really bothers me (and I bet half the people that read this are suddenly feeling defensive). BUT, I don't think I have the right to make you stop smoking. I don't like, but I should not be allowed to infringe on your liberties. Putting a tax on nicotine products to encourage others to stop smoking is wrong. Just like putting a tax on alcohol. If this is ok, then it's not a long step to put a tax on gay marriage, just people certain people don't approve of it. Maybe we could put a tax on those saggy pants that hang around someone knees (Actually, that might be a good idea ^_~), or plus sized bikinis.

Another example of taxation for social change is when taxes are lifted to encourage behavior. For example, a company is taxed less when they use green energy. What this is really doing, is driving down the cost of products that were developed with green energy. When you go to the store, and see a bag of Nestle Cheesy Poofs for $3.49 and a bag of Mother's Cheesy Poofs for $3.99, all things being equal you might buy the less expensive product, there by rewarding the company that was able to provide their product to you at a lower cost. How did they do that? They use renewable energy in their factories, so they weren't taxed as heavily as their competition.

With a little hyperbole, the more expensive brand would go out of business unless they switch their production process. But doesn't that fly in the face of capitalism? In a proper capitalistic society, should the brand that provides the better product be the one to succeed, as opposed to the brand that responded to the government's desire for social change?

Summary
So, in the end, I think taxation is OK so long as the people know how their money is being used, and can change how their money is being used, and as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others.

But Can it Run Crysis?

Genre: First Person Shooter
Released: 2007

OK, so this review is 4 years late. I don't care! In 2007 Crysis was released with hardware requirements that put the game out of reach for just about everyone. In the years to follow the game was updated to further push it out of reach of its potential fan base.

This was a good thing.

If people were able to play the game they would have discovered how awful it really way. OK, it wasn't the worst game out there by a long shot, but for a game with such a reputation, it was quite a disappointment.

The game starts off well enough. In the near future, you're a special-ops soldier with a special suit that can alter your physiology, allowing you to run faster, jump higher, or become invisible. When the story begins, you're running through the Korean jungle hunting down some missing scientists. As the story evolves, it turns out the scientists have unearthed and awakened an alien species. Let the mayhem begin.

The premise is fun, if not a little over-used. Where the game fails is its unfun difficulty. I don't play on the hardest level, but I do like a challenge. I often had to restart an area twenty or thirty times to I could practice and get it right. That actually never bothered me. I enjoyed needing to fine tune my skills, and discover new ways to approach a difficult area.

When I refer to unfun difficulty I'm talking about getting 1-shotted from behind by an invisible enemy. Not having an opportunity to defeat my enemy, let alone be aware of my enemy's existence just isn't my idea of a good time. In one part of the game, all weapons are taken away, and you have to search through a 3D maze in zero-g. All the while you are surrounded by enemies that typically ignore you. But once in a while when you're not looking, one of those enemies will suddenly take notice, and charge you from behind. You don't take damage, you just die. Game Over. Insert Quarter to Continue.

I learned that the only way to get through these parts was to save frequently, so I could start over, and hope the randomization gods would roll in my favor, and let me get another thirty seconds with out an instant, unexplained death.

Watch out for those mine fields. You allies can walk through them with out taking damage, but if you try, you'll just die. No damage. No warning that a mine killed you, just die.

In another part of the game, I had to get into an Anti-Aircraft vehicle and shoot down fast moving aliens, using sluggish controls. Of course, that AA Cannon can be 1-shotted. It took me a while, but I discovered that if I ignored the cannon, I could shoot down the aliens with conventional weapons. My allies yelled at me for 15 minutes to use the AA Cannon, but at least I didn't get any more unexplained deaths. In one experiment, I literally saved the game, jumped into the Cannon and died with in 2 seconds. I then reloaded waited a minute, jumped in the cannon, and died with in 2 seconds. I found that simply being in the cannon, I would die instantly, but taking direct fire from the aliens, I could withstand an attack.

As the game progresses, it only gets worse. The enemies get faster, the controls get slower, and the reasons for instant death become more numerous. If you're looking for a first person shooter. I suggest taking a nail gun to your leg. It's a lot more fun, and you have a greater chance at survival.

Why is Alphas So Compelling?

Alphas is a new show on SyFy in the Hero's vein. It's about a small group of individuals with extra-human abilities (read: X-Men) who go around solving crimes. Yeah, been there done that. We've seen the X-Men movies, we watched Heroes, and it seems every network has a new "superhero" show out that's ultimately just a remix of the two.

In many respects, Alphas is no different. Instead of a family, such as in No Ordinary Family, we get a group of psych patients who get roped into government work. What's nice about this change is we see these special people not as Superheros, but as people who have to cope with their extraordinary abilities.

One character in particular, Gary has the ability to read electro-magnetic waves in the air. He can watch TV simply by watching what's in the air, or listen to the radio, or a cell phone call. Unfortunately, he's autistic. The great irony of a master of communication who is incapable of communicating, himself.

This character, while initially a little difficult to watch, has really grown on me, and become why I watch the show. His two worlds really demonstrates the human focus of the show. He's not a guy in spandex with a special ability thwarting the plans of an evil mastermind. Instead, he is a severely disabled individual who is highly intelligent, and trying to come into his own.

Gary can do things no one on earth can do, but he faces problems that almost everyone on earth can solve. He has a mother that loves him, and tries to do the best for him, when no one can possibly know what is best for someone as unique as him. In many respects, she, like his co-workers, tell him he's an adult while treating him like a child.

His co-workers find him to be useful, but are clearly set off by his difficulty with communication. It's one thing to know that someone is autistic, it's another to be infinitely patient with someone with autism. Alphas does an amazing job at playing up that difficulty.

Everyone in the main cast has their very human issues that have to deal with, but Gary's character is what really drives the point him. This isn't a show about superheros saving the day. This is a show about real people with real problems trying to get through life despite having extra-human abilities.

Google Plus -- Why?

I've seen this question come up a few times. Why use Google Plus? Heck, if it's just a Facebook clone, why not continue to use Facebook? I started to write a long answer to this question on a friends profile on Google Plus, and thought it was better suited for a blog. So, here goes!

Privacy

This can't be stressed enough. So, I'll say it once more. Privacy!

Facebook has a really bad reputation for not caring much for user's privacy. There's even a Wikipedia Article all about this! Here's a few (kinda) quick items to get you thinking about Facebook's stance on privacy.

• Facebook cooperates with government search requests. This means if the government goes to Facebook and says "We wanna look for child predators. Give us user information." Facebook smiles and hands it over. That's not so bad right? I mean, child predators are dirty evil stinky people that should be wiped from the earth. But we have a Fourth Amendment (illegal search and seizure) for a reason. OK, I'll try to stay out of the political side, that's another blog, but the basic is, the Facebook shares your personal and private information with the government, with out your consent.
  
  
• How does Facebook make money? They sell information about you. We're not talking about anonymous aggregate data. We're talking about personal specifics. "Aaron Dougherty likes Star Wars," "Aaron Dougherty lives in Henderson, NV." Advertisers like this 'cause now they can send me ads for a comic shop down the street. But it's also very dangerous information to be floating out there on the internet with out your oversight.
  
  
• It seems about every 4 to 6 months Facebook changes something, to add a new feature. That's nice and all, I like progress. But this new feature inevitably has security disabled. There are three reasons for this. 1) Facebook employees are inept, and don't even think about security, 2) Facebook executives intentionally lower security in hopes of selling more personal data, 3) Facebook knows that only 10% of its members actually check their security, so why not err on the side of money?
  
  What's worse about this lack of privacy of new features, is a new feature is often simply an upgrade or change of an existing feature. You may have felt secure having set a high level of security on a feature (or all of them!) then Facebook will change or upgrade that feature. But when they do this, they don't respect your old security settings. They simply default it back to no security.

Lets move on to Google

Google, like Facebook has developed a reputation when it comes to security. Unlike Facebook, their reputation is one of success. Google knows it's an internet powerhouse, and it, like Facebook makes the vast majority of it's money from knowing information about you. Google knows more about you than Facebook ever will. But they don't abuse this power. Instead of selling information about you. They provide advertisers a way to get to you with out knowing anything about you.

Google Plus is no different. From the start it has done a great job a securing the user's sense of security. By default your information is not shared with anyone. Here's a peek at the default settings in Google Plus.

• The only people who can post on your "wall" are the people who you are not only following, but have grouped in a circle. Contrast to Facebook, where the default is anyone can post to your wall unless you block them. Only let friends post to your wall? Well things you are interested in can post to your wall too, unless you block them. I liked the movie The Forgotten, but I don't like seeing my wall fill up with posts from a 10 year old movie.
  
  
• By default, no one can see your posts. You have to designate who can see it (That's easily set to "Public," if you're not concerned). Got a picture of you drunk from that party last night? Share it with only your friends. Then your boss (or prospective employer) can't just look you up and figure you can't sell used cars because you had fun at a party once. Contracts to Facebook where your posts are by default public. Not just to your friends, but the entire Internet.
  
  There have been many cases where an employer will look up a prospective (or existing) employee on Facebook, and make hiring decisions based on what they find there.
  
  
• Sparks (Your interested) are private, and instead of a setting to make them public is simply a message letting you know that they're private. Google won't even let you hurt your security. Contrast again to Facebook who actively use interests as a data point to sell to advertisers. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if that's why they came up with it in the first place. Not because the community would find it interesting, but because there was a way to make money off it.

Circles

Ok, enough with the Privacy stuff. Not only was I starting to beat a dead horse, I followed it to heaven and made glue from it's soul. Now lets talk Circles.

In their simplest form, circles are groups. Everyone's got them. Not special right? Well, add Google innovation into them, and they actually become really cool!

• Privacy (OK, I lied. Now I'm taking that horse's soul glue and jumping up and down on it). No, but really. Your posts can be made available to certain circles. So, like with the party example above, Instead of just posting that funny picture of you at a party, that could be misinterpreted by an employer, you make your post visible to one or more circles. Like maybe, Real Friends only. Now your employer will never find it, nor will it creep out your grandma.
  
  
• Priv... Just kidding. As I alluded to above. There's likely information that you don't want to go to certain people. It's not just about public/private. It's about who among your friends can see it or want to see it. Have you heard about the latest Star Wars game? Well, people in my Star Wars Fan circle may be interested, So might people in my Gaming circle. But probably not the people in my Family Circle, nor in my Church circle.
  
  
• Ever look through your Facebook wall, and see posts from an old high school acquaintance, that you had a few classes with about their kids doing normal things. Yeah, I'm sure they feel proud that their 3-year-old kid likes to play on a swing, and I bet their current close friends that actually have met the kid care, and enjoy updates. But I do not care! In fact, I'd rather just block that person. Not that their a bad, or even annoying person. But their posts about their lovely kid means as much to be as a slideshow about paint drying.
  
  To sum it up, with less rant. Circles means I see less unimportant information on my "wall." Now when that old high school acquaintance post something about a reunion, or a major event in their life, I'll actually notice, and care.
  
  
• A side effect from posts being limited to circles is, people are starting to discover, better and more meaningful communication between friends. As people start to limit who can see their posts, it has an additional effect, of people only reading what's interesting to them. And when you filter through less garbage, you pay attention more to what's going on. Consider these two scenarios:
  
  
  
  
  • I post an article about a new game to my gaming group. Someone in that group responds to it. Well, everyone that got the post will likely be interested in following and contributing to that conversation, as they are all identified gamers.
  
  
  
  • I post an article about how much I like Joe Politician (he's no longer just a plumber!) publicly. The comments on the post are emotional, and likely uninformed. "What? Joe is an idiot!" If this inspires any conversation, it's likely to be a flame war.
    
    
• Perhaps another permutation of above, but an important one. You can hide information from certain groups of people. Note: there is no explicit way to exclude a group. Personally, I like to read The Onion, and Cracked.com. The language and occasional NSFW content doesn't bother me at all. But, most of my family would be bothered by it. I never really felt comfortable about posting those articles to my wall. I read some articles that had me laughing so hard I cried, and I knew my friends would do the same, but my family might want to look away, and wish they never stumbled upon even the title of the article, let alone the contents. So again, circles to the rescue!
  
  
• People act differently with different groups. It's a fact, look it up. Or just think about the language you use at your grandma's house vs the language you use at your friend's house. Or think about the conversation topics at the dinner table vs the conversation topics at the local club. Circles lets you be who you are, with the right people.
  
  I can post that cute cat video to my family, who all love cute cats.
  I can post that crude article making fun of Noah's Ark to my friends.
  I can post Rihanna's latest single to my friends from the Club.

Children of the Corn: Part 1 to 7 to 1

"Never work with animals or children." -- W.C. Fields

Note: No Spoilers

Over the past couple weeks, I've had the pleasure of watching the entire Children of the Corn series. I own the original, but never did get around to watching the rest until recently. After excitement and disgust with the series, I decided to share my thoughts.

The series started off very well, and I continually had high hopes for each sequel, as each one got worse and worse (with a few exceptions). Before going into detail, I'll summarize by saying that the supernatural progresses in each movie, trying to out-do its predecessors. There are a few budding starlets to be found, and the potential for a great world that was never tapped into.

Children of the Corn (1984)

The film that started it all. Originally a short story by Stephen King, It was sufficiently creepy, with out all the needless gore and cheap scares. The movie opens up with the children in a small farm town, Gatlin Nebraska, who with eerie precision kill every adult in town at the same time.

From there we are transported a few years into the future when an adult couple (including Linda Hamilton, best known for her starring role in The Terminator) wander into town to find it deserted with the exception of the children. Now the couple must survive against religious fanatics, who worship "He Who Walks Behind The Rows."

Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice

Why it's called "The Final Sacrifice," I have yet to figure out. I'm pretty sure that despite some typical killing, there were no sacrifices, and certainly nothing that indicated one would be final.

Overall, I have to give the writer some credit to this movie. He did at least try to tie it to the original, even if the connections are loose. The story takes place in a town neighboring Gatlin, which was mentions a few times in the first movie.

I the original, the Children were commanded by "He Who Walks Behind The Rows" to kill the adults, because they were wicked. That's all the viewer needed. Some supernatural being, most likely evil, wants all the adults dead, and so it was. Come the sequel, and the motives have changed. Arguably, one could say they were better defined, but in reality they were just changed.

As made popular in Scream, horror movies tend to kill off those who have done wrong in society (drugs, alcohol, sex, anger, etc). Those who live are the innocents. It's a way of making it "OK" that someone died. Unlike the first movie, the sequel does this by making the adults of the town plot to harm lots of people through bad business practices. It also taps into the environmental concerns of the era.

Unfortunately, the creepy factor was replaced with blood and cheap scares. BOO a corpse on the screen! Girls in the theater scream, and boyfriends try to comfort them. Adults were not killed en masse, instead they were killed one by one, in a creatively graphic way, and only those who deserved to die.

Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest
I gotta hand it to them, the subtitle of this sequel isn't so bad. While the idea of moving the background from a rural farm town to central Chicago worried me, I had high hopes for a densely populated city allowing for a ton of deaths.

The story tried to continue from the first two movies, in such a way that it can effectively ignore them. Two kids from a farm town are adopted out to a couple in Chicago. The environmentalism continues, as do the individual killings.

One of the high points in this movie is that it adds to the "Children" lore. This was the first movie in the series that really made me interested in the world beyond the film. It even ended in a way that could make for some really great sequels.

Unfortunately this movie was marred with a really bad fight scene with a CGI monster, and pretty much lacked any killing. You know a movie is bad, when the scariest scenes are flashbacks from the first two movies.

Another element that began to show its self more in this movie was the supernatural capabilities of the kids, not just He Who Walks Behind The Rows. Unfortunately, this brings up the question: If the kids could do this supernatural stuff, why didn't they do it in the first two movies.

Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering

Who was gathering for what? I'm still not too sure, but it had Naomi Watts, so a few things could be forgiven in the grand scheme of things. In my opinion, this was one of the better sequels. It added to the lore, it had a creep factor, and it actually had a story beyond "kids kill adults."

It was a pity that the story was not continued from the cliff-hanger left in Urban Harvest. Instead, the writer opted to do a story that had no ties to the first 3 films. It was just some new farm town, where the cult popped up again. The scenes got bloodier, and the supernatural became more powerful. But it had Naomi Watts.

Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror

The subtitles can be rather hit-and-miss. Fields of Terror is so generic... just like the movie. Ever see a horror where a bunch of teenagers are trapped in a spooky place and people get killed off one by one? Considering that's the plot of just about every generic horror, I'm guessing most people have. Just add Fields of Terror to the list.

For the most part, I can handle a generic horror story. After all, I do enjoy the Friday the 13th series, as well as the The Child's Play Series. What bothered me the most about this movie was the crazy decisions the teens would make. I would say they were out of character, but there were hardly any characters to begin with. Just traditional archetypes.

On the plus side, it had Eva Mendes.

Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return

Why do I keep kidding my self? After four sequels, each one worse than the last, why did I think this would be good? Isaac's Return had a lot of potential to be a good movie. It was written by and starred John Franklin, the actor who played Isaac in the first movie. John returns to reprise his roll.

Unfortunately, the movie screamed of John Franklin's desire to be known again. In the end, it wasn't even close to scary or creepy, it was just boring. What's worse is there were no children. It was just adults acting weird.

Children of the Corn: Revelation

If this were a stand alone movie, with out the taint of the Children of the Corn sequels, it could have been really good. Lots of creepy, some decent killing, and a mystery. If they just took the corn out of the movie, it would have been good.

Children of the Corn (2009)

This is a remake of the 1984 movie. I was really hoping for a neat new vision of the movie, updated for the modern era. As usual, the Children of the Corn movie disappointed. If I hadn't seen the 1984 version, I would have been so confused! And beyond that, the leading actors were totally unlikable.

Oddly enough, the most likable character was Malachai played by Daniel Newman. Unlike the first movie, where Malachai bothered me, this one was portrayed so well! With out giving anything away, I was say he was a very good Darth Vader type character.