I sit here listening to Aretha Franklin’s “Think” while writing this, and it makes me think (you should have seen it coming).  While I have little doubt that my children or grandchildren will still get the pleasure of hearing Ms. Franklin’s voice, I do wonder about those three, four, or ten generations down the road.

There is something reassuring about knowing that I’ve read the same novels that people two hundred years ago read.  I’ve read the same poetry and plays people five hundred years ago read.  It ties me to the past and gives me a sense of place in time, which by itself is a bit of a difficult concept to grasp.  To think that, at best, I might make it a century in a recorded history that goes back thousands of years.  Sharing some of the same experiences as those in the past gives me a guide rope through time—not to get too overly philosophical about it all.  But will future generations retain such ties?

The question was spurred by a new book scanner that can scan at 1,000 fps.  In essence, the scanner can simply slip through the pages of a book and scan as it goes.  It’s just a prototype for now, but it cuts the laborious task of scanning books down to a more manageable task.  And that seems like a good thing.  But I wonder  if the entire world going digital is such a good thing?

Make no mistake, I love the fact that I can access almost any information from anywhere within seconds.  The Internet and the information availability is generally a good thing, I think.  What troubles me is the idea that new ideas and thoughts, including music and books, might go straight to digital and skip the physical stage.  For instance, copies of ancient Egyptian writings have managed to navigate their way through time to us today because a physical copy existed.  Civilizations and cultures have risen and fallen, but those words remained because there was something physical to dig up and put your hands on.  Will the same be true of digital information?

Suppose the worst case scenario and the world descends into nuclear war, or perhaps just an electromagnetic war of disabling the other side’s infrastructure of communications.  Where would all the blogs of the world be, including this one?  While I doubt the loss of this particular blog would be much of a loss to the annals of time, it is true that many of today’s best young writers are doing much of their writing exclusively online.  What happens when it isn’t there?

Of course, not all writings of the Egyptians have made it to modern day.  And while much is exclusively online, surely print books will remain for some of the creamiest of the crop.  But it does give me pause to consider that while I may be connected to the past, I may in fact be cutting my own cord to the future simply be hitting enter.

No related posts.

It’s probably important, in full disclosure, to reveal that I am at least somewhat tech savvy.  I use the term somewhat broadly, because while I can open a desktop and install a new hard drive, or install Ubuntu onto that desktop afterwards, I am not the type who can hand code my very only flavor of Linux.  And I assure you, there are people right now scrolling as fast as they can down to the comments section to reveal to me that either 1) they can hand code Linux, or 2)  that is a ridiculous statement to make in the first place…even as a joke.

All that said, I recently became invested in purchasing a new laptop computer.  I immediately assumed I knew what I was doing since I bought a new desktop less than a year ago, and again, I am somewhat tech savvy.  I was wrong.  While buying a new laptop may be easy for the rich, Apple loyalists, very tech savvy, and completely tech unsavvy, I fit none of those four categories.  For me, it was a royal pain, and not the fun kind that comes on USA Network Fridays at 8.

So, I looked at Apples first.  I actually very much enjoy Apple computers, but at fear of drawing the ire of those aforementioned Apple loyalists, I must admit that I found them too damn expensive.  I’m not a rich person.  $1,500 for a 15-inch notebook is a lot of money.  If this were homes we were talking about we’d phrase it in square footage as $100 per inch of screen real estate.  That’s sort of nutty to a non-rich, non-Apple loyalist like me.  Fantastic computers, but I can find a comparable PC for at least $500 less.

I looked at PC notebooks and I immediately saw why people are Apple loyalists.  Most PC notebooks are made incredibly shoddy.  They’re cheap plastic that bends and warps just sitting on a showroom floor–how will they react in the real world?  I can tell you, because I’ve owned a Dell laptop before and the thing’s case warped on me.  It was usable, but it was, again, a royal pain.

Unlike with the Apples, I suddenly had to consider build quality as a factor in purchasing a laptop.  Let’s be honest, this is rarely a concern in purchasing a new desktop.  For most of us we’d be happy with the old fashioned beige box that conveniently sits under the desk and we never have to look at it.  We want style in the keyboard, monitor, and mouse perhaps, but the actual desktop doesn’t matter as long as it doesn’t spontaneously crumble into dust.

This immediately ruled out many manufacturers such as HP, who seems to have a lead designer fresh out of S&M school who really likes slapping shiny plastic onto every surface.  Even the screens of their notebooks shined more than a polished nickel.  Look, I should be capable of seeing the laptop screen in situations other than a completely dark room.  Not only does the plastic distract, but it also looks and feels cheap to the touch.

But the worst offender was a Dell I saw from their Studio line that had warping in the body of the system.  Looking at it from eye level you could see a bow in the center of the body, basically reaching an apex at the space bar.  Really?  And this was just a display model, not even one used in real world situations.  You may think this was an isolated incident, but remember I’ve seen at least one other Dell do this at work.  In fairness, several other Dell models looked great, and garnered serious consideration.

The model finally decided upon was a Sony Vaio.  Again, I’m sure someone tech savvy will jump in here to tell me how crappy of hardware they are, and they may very well be right.  However, in the past I have owned a Sony Vaio desktop and had no problems with it.  When it comes to this laptop, the sturdy build and raised keyboard design were huge pluses for me.  It felt like something that could be carried around and used for more than a year before it broke.  We shall see.

What I learned from all of this, something I did not know previously, is that shopping for a laptop is a completely different beast than searching for a desktop.  With that I was completely focused on specs, for the most part.  With this search I had to focus far more on design and usability.  And this is to say nothing of deciding on screen size and evaluating the quality of screens on different notebooks.  If their particularities is what makes different models appealing to people, then they are also what frustrate many of us.  Oh for the simplicity of a desktop.

No related posts.

Try to hide your shock, but it appears Hulu may be moving to a subscription based model.  Jonathan Miller, News Corp.’s new chief digital officer stated that is exactly where he sees the currently free site headed.  But don’t worry too much yet, as this is neither as inevitable or possibly as bad as you might think.

Speaking at The Hollywood Reporter’s Internet Week event, Miller said he envisions a future where at least some of the films and TV shows would be considered premium content accessible only by subscription.  Still, Miller is so new he hasn’t even attended a single board meeting of Hulu, so it isn’t a done deal quite yet.  But with word that Hulu is set to turn a profit this year and is already more financially solvent than YouTube, why change a good think?

There’s a few reasons.  First, the cable companies are irate over Hulu.  The site essentially circumvents them, and many younger users have decided it negates their entire need for a cable subscription.  If more started to feel this way, especially with ABC’s recent partnering, then the cable companies might really be in trouble.

But what would it take for a significant enough part of the population to drop cable?  Many are still waiting on a way to conveniently stream Hulu on their television.  Just before E3 there were rumors that Microsoft would introduce just such an ability for their Xbox 360.  That didn’t pan out, but now such rumors have turned to the Roku media player which already streams Netflix films (much like the Xbox 360).  Make it easy enough and why would anyone need cable?

Well, anyone but the content providers.  As much as NBC Universal might see green with Hulu’s ad revenues, they also worry about making an enemy out of big cable providers.  They still need their cable outlets, such as USA Network, to appear on most cable systems both the income generated by fees charge to the cable companies and advertising.  They’re not quite yet at the point where a digital streaming solution can replace that income—only supplement it.

In addition, while adding older, more niche films to the Hulu catalog might make sense for generating revenue, adding more modern hit films does not.  Fox has yet to add franchises like Die Hard because there’s still so much money in those films on cable, DVD, and other outlets.  In other words, they hate to give the milk away for free.  Internet users, meanwhile, are use to getting their cows for free.

This, of course, creates a dilemma.  How does a site like Hulu move to a subscription model when the Internet audience is used to getting everything for free?  Miller is smart enough to know it would have to be a limited amount of the content, and not the entire site.  Going entirely pay would drive away most of the site’s current audience.  So, how much would you be willing to pay and for what?

No related posts.

There’s something a little surreal about putting Jim Carrey into an animated film.  Part of his original charm in films such as Ace Venture Pet Detective and The Mask was how animated he was in real life.  But Robert Zemeckis has found a solution—motion capture animation.

In recent years Zemeckis has worked exclusively in motion capture animation.  From The Polar Express to Beowulf, and now to this.  This work has put him somewhat at odds with his fans who’d love to see the Zemeckis of old who did films such as the Back to the Future trilogy, Contact, Forest Gump, and Who Framed Roger Rabbit.  But Zemeckis is in love with the motion capture technology and it seems to be his format of choice for the moment.

Zemeckis has said that his two favorite time travel stories are The Time Machine and A Christmas Carol, so it makes sense for him to take this story on.  And even though it doesn’t often get mentioned as a time travel story, that’s exactly what Dickens’ classic is.  In this new version Carrey takes over the role of not only Scrooge at four different ages, but also the three ghosts who visit him on Christmas Eve.  So if you’re one of those people for whom a little Carrey goes a long way, you should probably stay away.

The Polar Express was a stiff, but dreamlike film.  It didn’t sit well with many, but I personally found it to be quite a bit of fun.  I felt the surreal look fit the story well.  Beowulf was a Hollywood action film version of the classic poem, but then again, Beowulf basically reads like a big-budget testosterone infused film.  Go kill monsters, come back, get drunk, and repeat.  It was spectacular to view in Imax-3D.  If Carrey and Zemeckis can combine the dreamlike state of The Polar Express with the improved animation of Beowulf they’re likely to have a huge hit on their hands.  And maybe fans won’t mind then if Zemeckis tries his hand at motion-capture again.

Watch a promo clip below and see an interview here.

No related posts.

Face it, Facebook, you’re just too popular.  You’re the local weatherman who can’t go to the adult bookstore because everyone knows your face (never mind who would have to be there to rat you out).  What was once a cool fad has gone mainstream to the point where grandma and grandpa are using it.  What’s hip about it anymore?

Face it, Facebook users, Facebook has made you into the local weather man.  Where once you could post pictures from your drunken weekend, no longer is that possible.  Your teachers, preachers, bosses, and grandparents are on.  Sure, you can try to ignore their friend requests, but isn’t that a little like stalling when someone says, “We’re friends, right?”

Facebook’s popularity will ultimately be its undoing, or at least its fundamental changing.  What do the young and hip do when the old and tragically unhip are also friending them?  I fall into that weird middle ground.  I’m too old to be posting pictures of my drunken weekend, but I’m young enough to have heard of most of the major Web 2.0 sites (even if I think the term Web 2.0 is silly).  So, where does that leave me?

I’m on Facebook, but more and more I notice old professors, current colleagues, and aunts and uncles joining on as well.  Anything I might say slightly sardonic feels like it has to be vetted first, just in case someone might take it the wrong way.  Would noting that HIS 213 was useless and just proven wrong by The History Channel perhaps reflect poorly on me with that past professor?  Possibly, but who cares?  That’s in the past, right?  But then, I am friends with him in the first place because of the allure of networking, and in the world of academia it’s paramount (well, in any world really, minus Vulcan (RIP)).

One solution is to keep two separate profiles—a personal and a professional one.  Or perhaps to keep professional profiles limited to LinkedIn.  But what about when that professional contact is only on Facebook?  Or what about when that person on Facebook isn’t professional, but you don’t really want them knowing what’s personal, either?  Multiple profiles is a pain, and it seems to be the whole reason everyone would join Facebook in the first place.  Otherwise, why don’t we all just join fifty different networks and we’ll sort it all out later?

The more Facebook grows, like with many businesses, the less it feels intimate.  Ten years ago it was still cool to be an Apple user as you fought the good fight against the Evil Empire.  Now?  You own an iPod just like everyone else.  Your computer is a fashion statement, not a hard-line stance on software engineering.  With popularity went some of the cache of being an Apple fan, and thereby some of the usefulness (for some).  Still a good product, but it isn’t exactly screaming cool these days.

Facebook faces the same battle now.  When soccer moms are using it to organize car pools, where’s the cool factor to keep young people using it?  We can already see that some are heading to Twitter, but it exudes an even more open interface than Facebook.  You don’t even have to friend someone—just allow them to follow you.  Who cares if someone follows them?  Oh, wait…

Privacy has been an issue since the early days of the Internet, but only now is the importance of it really reaching the masses.  Google monitoring what you search?  Who cares?  Every web site collecting personal data in order to read content?  Small price to pay!  Mom on Facebook?  FML, WTF?

No related posts.

If you’re questioning exactly what a fan game is, then it’s likely you’ve never heard of fan fiction or fan films.  Fan media, as a broad term, is when fans of a media property take it upon themselves to recreate the or expand upon the experience of that media.  In other words, when two guys make a Star Wars short film in their back yard.

It’s been going on for years with fan fiction (short stories), and indeed some of these are breaks into the world of real book writing, at least in the Star Trek universe.  Fan films came about in the early 1990s, mostly thanks to the rise of the Internet for distribution and the cheap costs of digital video editing solutions.,  Fan games have been around at least as long, and essentially are fan versions of classic video game series.

Look around online and you’ll find countless hacks or completely unique creations based around Super Mario Brothers.  So far Nintendo has been fairly quiet on the subject, as long as people don’t try to sell their hacks.  That seems fair and makes sense as it’s the same tactic that George Lucas has taken with Star Wars fan films.  Lucas has even sponsored fan film contests and provided downloadable sound effects for directors to use.  Though, in fairness, those “fan films” had to be completely original and not actually based in the Star Wars universe (think George Lucas in Love).

So, while Nintendo has taken a bit of a hands off approach, other companies have gotten very involved with these types of projects.  The most recent case was a fan game sequel to Chrono Trigger.  Square-Enix put an end to it almost as quickly as they did Chrono Resurrection and Chrono Trigger Remake, two fan games trying to update the beloved original.  But both of those made business sense for Square.  Just last year they released Chrono Trigger on the Nintendo DS, and if updated versions were floating around out there who would buy a basic port of the original?

Sequels and side games, however, make less sense.  Would people not buy a remake of Chrono Trigger because a fan made sequel existed?  Maybe for some, but most would want the original.  In fact, many would likely want the original strictly from having played the sequel and wanting to know how the story began.  This is the same logic that movie studios use when they rush a film out on DVD or Blu-ray because a sequel is hitting theaters.  It just makes sense people will want to buy or rent the original before seeing the sequel.

If Square-Enix seemed at all interested in producing a sequel themselves perhaps it would make more sense.  However, they haven’t touched the franchise since the PS One days with Chrono Cross, a pseudo-sequel at best.  Instead, such issues seems to have more to do with particular companies’ hang ups over ROMs and their distribution.  It’s akin to how movie studios bristle at the mere idea of someone ripping a DVD, even if it is just to watch on their iPod or stream to their TV.  Game companies fear that allowing fan game ROMs to be freely distributed invites distribution of their actual games online, as well.

Of course, this is rather silly.  Yes, some people pirate the Star Wars films online, but far fewer one suspects than will ever see the fan films that populate YouTube and a million other sites.  Of course, YouTube videos can be played with relative ease by any remotely up-to-date computer.  ROMs, on the other hand, require emulator software.  Once fans start downloading emulator software to play a Chrono Trigger sequel, what’s to keep them from going ahead and downloading the original while they’re at it?  It’s the same argument that is used against peer to peer networks that allow for the distribution of some perfectly legal material in between all the pirated music, movies, and games.

One solution for companies would be to build a web software interface through which fans could upload ROMs to be played on a web site.  Imagine, you go to Square-Enix’s web site and there are hundreds of fan tribute games to Chrono Trigger and you can play them all for free.  It would be a similar setup to Kongregate and other online gaming sites, allowing fans to vote for their favorites.  It would take the emulation out of the hands of the customers.  Of course, there’s obvious flaws with such a plan.  One of the largest being payment of royalties for music and character designs.

Still, there must be some solution.  If film and literature can get this right, surely games can as well.

No related posts.

It’s a question science fiction has been asking for decades.  If, at some point, fantasy could mimic reality to a flawless degree, would we care?  Should we care?  And unlike how much of science fiction predicted this question would come to a head through virtual reality or androids, it is instead our culture that raises the question today.

Consider the images above (see more).  It’s a very simply little trick on the mind as the image on the left is the exact same image as the one on the right, simply rotated.  The reaction, of course, is that the left image appears fantastical, but the right image appears beautiful. yet mundane.  We are taken aback for a moment by the left image, but the right image looks like any number we have seen before.  So, if the exact same image can be slightly manipulated to create something captivating over common, then it’s the better presentation, right?

Artistically we might claim so, but in a low of our lives we would say no.  We want the authentic image, and not the one that’s been worked over with PhotoShop a time or two.  But why?  If the edited image is superior in some manner, then why not prefer it?  This isn’t discussion of such weighty things as journalistic images, but of those designed simply for pleasure.  For example, what of erotica?

Consider the image here.  A scantily clad beauty, no?  Except, she isn’t real.  She’s a computer generated illusion.  But does it or should it matter for those who are simply viewing her for carnal lust?  This may sound like a silly question, but it’s an important one.  Many young men become infatuated with video game characters like Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games and go so far as to adorn their bedrooms with posters of a virtual woman.  But she isn’t real, and neither is this model.  So, if it’s okay for a pin-up queen, then why not for imagery that older males might be interested in?

The question has been of some prominence in recent years due to advancements in digital technology.  While we might not be living in virtual zones quite yet, we can essentially recreate most things virtually in media format.  We may not be able to reach out and touch the model yet, but we can ogle her from afar.

But the question isn’t just one for digital technology.  For example, the past ten years have brought a wave of reality television into homes.  Millions sit down every night to watch programming that is billed as “reality” but in truth is the furthest thing from it.  Some argue that they simply do not care.  They know it’s fake, but that still doesn’t keep it from entertaining.  Others seem completely ignorant of the fact that much of reality programming is staged.  For these, consider next time you watch a show where all the cameras are in relation to one another and figure out how they keep them from getting into each other’s shots.  Survivor is famous for this in their distant overhead shots.

Let’s go back to the first group though—those who don’t care that it’s faked.  If you don’t care, then at what point does it start to matter?  At what point does the fantasy get uncomfortable in its usurping of reality?  “When it actually matters,” is an argument I’ve seen before, which of course begs a follow-up question for elaboration.  That usually leads into a discussion of politics, war, greed, etc.  In other words, reality matters when reality is at stake.  For matters of beauty in art or beauty in erotica it simply doesn’t matter.  Make it the most affective possible, and move on.

If this is true, then why care about steroids in sports or create publications like Perfect 10 Magazine, which at its inception bragged that all the women within its pages were 100% natural.  No additives, one assumes.  Yet, years later Playboy still sells tons more magazines and people continue to attend sporting events.  So, apparently, no one does care.

All of this, however, is overlooking the real consequences of reality’s losing battle against fantasy.  While fake models in erotica may not bother some consumers from an intellectual standpoint, arguments can be made that it bothers society.  While women feel intimidated enough already measuring up against models in ads, what happens when those models aren’t even real?  While Heidi Klum may have minor issues airbrushed away, what happens when there is no Klum to begin with?  Only imagination of an artist?  If a real woman cannot fulfill that fantasy idea, then where does that place the two sexes with one another?

Media effects as a field is almost always hesitating to draw direct effects for a good reason—they simply don’t often exist in reality.  Instead, it tries to draw a long arch showing that continued exposure to such messages begins to wear down a person’s perceptions, or perhaps, build them up in another direction.  Portray Arab men as terrorists in films enough and people will begin to view all Arab men as terrorists, even if they do know some personally who are obviously not.  They’ll begin to view their anecdotal evidence as just that, and view the media’s portrayal as reality.  If that truly is how it works for some, and we accept that, then what can be said for those who would willfully subject themselves to such distortions of reality?

It all leads back to the underlying question we must begin asking before we are forced into answering—does reality matter?

No related posts.

There was a time when I resisted the lure of Facebook.  I had already used MySpace and found it rather pointless.  It was mostly just old high school and college friends wanting to “reconnect” long enough to see how many kids I have, and not much else.  What was the point for a non-15-year-old?

Eventually, however, the lure of Facebook and the constant requests to “upgrade” to it from MySpace got me.  And what I found was pretty much exactly the same thing as MySpace.  Yes, the design is nicer, but the features and everything else reek of MySpace, which was pretty much a time sink and waste—though not necessarily always at the same time.

But then I discovered the true appeal of social networks—the normalizing factor.  Everyone knows the true use of social networks is voyeurism.  But as an adult the appeal of seeing a classmate in a drunken, provocative picture simply doesn’t exist.  But voyeurism remains for adults in the form of one constant high school reunion.

Remember Jane from high school?  Well, according to Facebook Jane now enjoys dressing up in 1920s attire to celebrate the rocking days of prohibition at church barbecues.  Wait, that isn’t normal!  I don’t do anything nearly that freaky.

But what about Paul from college?  Paul is so obsessed with Hayden Panettiere, the cheerleader from the TV show Heroes, that he attends science fiction conventions, not in drag, but with a copy of Ice Princess hoping she will sign it.  Really?  That’s not exactly normal.

Of course, everyone is abnormal in their own way, which is the great lie of normalcy.  But Facebook is a public airing of these slight deviations.  The fact that I might blog seems trivial in comparisons to such weird escapades.  In face, their unusualness makes me feel slightly more usual and normal in response.  It’s therapy without the hundreds in session fees.  It’s a high school reunion where there’s no chance of being cornered and talking to someone you couldn’t stand twenty years ago, let alone now.

Facebook is Plato’s cave—showing us mere shadows of reality, and we’re quite pleased to indulge in them.  Nothing is what it seems, because we seem the height of normalcy, but it’s so much easier than actual human contact that might shear out fantasy, right?  Marx might have called religion the opium of the people, but that’s only because he never saw Facebook.

No related posts.

Wait, something happening now can not explain past success, can it?  I mean, unless we were the Lost castaways…oh, wait, ABC?  Gotcha.  Actually, the point is nearly as convoluted as Lost, and that’s a good thing.

Hulu.com was a joint startup between NBC Universal and Fox.  The idea was to bring the media properties of both giants under one banner online, and it has worked.  Within 18 months of launching it has become the third most popular video site.  So, what’s the secret to its success and why is ABC so eager to join up forces with its two competitors?

To understand Hulu as a web site, you must first look at how other mediums work.  Television works because all you need is an initial investment for a television, and then the interface is as simple as pressing up and down buttons.  This can be made more complicated through digital cable and satellite, but even those options still allow for the simple up and down button push.  Essentially, television just works and the interface is streamlined for the masses.

Compare that to the web sites of ABC, NBC, Fox, and CBS.  Each has a different interface and is crowded with additional content beyond the video content.  Each may use a different browser plugin or video format for streaming.  Quality may vary wildly, as might the way one is advertised too.  For example, on ABC’s web site you have to click a button to proceed at the end of commercial breaks.

Hulu, on the other hand, provides a unified interface for all three networks.  Its content is entirely video based and the interface is about as simple as possible to use.  No, it isn’t exactly as simple as television, but then again, it’s probably just as simple as many digital cable guides.  Point being, Hulu mimics television in its simplicity, with quality programming easily accessible from a variety of partners via a standard interface.

For all that consumers crow about wanting standards when it comes to media distributions (MP3, Blu-ray, etc.), the distributors have been slow to catch on.  Now, perhaps their biggest success of the digital age (ruling out iTunes, where credit goes to Apple) comes for a unified format and interface.  Who’d have thought?

No related posts.

It may come to a shock to many, but the things you see done with computers on shows like CSI and 24 are pretty farfetched.  You cannot blow up an image infinitely and obtain details by simply “enhancing resolution.”  To put it simply, if this were true there would be no need for more than one megapixel digital cameras or high-definition content, as any video content would do.

But such shows persist in portraying the impossible as the mundane.  One can sort of buy it if this were to happen on Star Trek, but CSI and 24 are supposed to take place in our reality.  They’re supposed to be playing by our rules.  Of course, we know this isn’t true.

In truth, film and television take great liberties with reality all the time.  Sure, we can buy that someone might jump out of a moving car with only minor cuts and bruises, because after all–it does seem possible, if unlikely.  But what about the more mundane lies?  What about how just about anytime you see a minority portrayed dramatically they are in a position of power?  On The Office Michael needed a boss and so Jan was created–a woman.  Who replaced Jan?  A man named Charles, who also happened to be black.

Make no mistake, there are many minorities in positions of power.  One needs only to look to the White House to see this.  Barack Obama is President, Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice predates both of them.  So the idea is hardly a lie or even absurd.  What is absurd is the disproportionate power minorities are depicted as having.  It leads many to assume that old racial barriers and glass ceilings no longer exist.  While the glass ceiling may be heavily cracked, for many it is still an inhibitor.

This is why so many young people today will tell you that race and gender no longer matter in this country.  Of course, those young people were unlikely paying close attention this past presidential election when issues of race and gender faced both Obama and Clinton, as well as Sarah Palin.  Perhaps if the three had only had access to the amazing computers of CSI?

We don’t always expect or even want something resembling reality in our fictional programming.  We should, however, be careful of allowing those fictional distortions to shape our reality.

No related posts.