Office technology...or lack of it

How many of you have dreaded going to the office not because it was Monday or because you knew that you might have to work late, but because you didn't want to fight with the outdated technology there?



*Raises hand* I'll admit it.

Yes, I understand that technology costs money, but in today's world, technology isn't that expensive. It amazes me to learn that people are using outdated software, hardare, and networks.

Case in point: When I first started working at my new job, I didn't even have my own computer to start with. I shared with a guy from Sales who was mainly in the field. That was actually a fairly up-to-date computer. But when I was finally given my computer, I had to work with Office 2000, Outlook 2000, and just outdated tech. It was annoying especially since my laptop and internet at home is tons better.

It's almost as if company's are afraid to upgrade because either too much might change or things might get confusing, or a myriad of other reasons/excuses.

In my mind, it is more efficient for a company to be running on good technology. Now, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't expect every company to be running the top-of-the-line equipment for their network. But, it is in their best interest to be current.

Another issue with technology at work is the network. How many of you get annoyed when you try to download something you need, or maybe a different web browser and you get blocked by a pop-up that says something about needing Admin privileges?

I get annoyed.

I understand the concept behind requiring Admin approval for downloads, but it's not that practical. Most people today understand about malicious software and are for the most part careful when downloading.

It just makes it more appealing to work when you know you can "customize" your work environment without destroying your outdated computer/software or repeatedly calling IT for help.

The Wonderful World of....Warcraft?

About two months ago, I started playing World of Warcraft.

(Cue the eye-rolling and the thoughts of "another one bites the dust")

Thankfully for you, I'm not here to insist that everyone play this game or drone on like a geek. No, I'm here to talk about a different facet of World of Warcraft, or WoW, that seems to slip under the mountain of quest seekers, dungeon masters, gear professionals, PvP artists, and, well, you get the point. This aspect is the social side of the game.

You may think, 'With millions of people playing that game, isn't the social side of the game really the goal? Bringing people together to enjoy a game?' Yes, it is, but my point drives deeper than that. I'm talking the social interaction between players, the friend-making, the good times.

This is the reason I love playing WoW so much. Many players get so caught up in the game itself, trying to gain the next achievement, find the rarest drops, pick up the epic loot, etc., that they sometimes lose the social nature of the game. Yes, maybe they group up for a quest or dungeon, or belong to a guild, but it's just a means to an end.

*Note: I'm not saying this applies to all WoW players.

And this brings up another point: World of Warcraft is just a game. (I can hear the hardcore games gasping and protesting now.) Yes, believe it or not, it is just a game. A fun game, a very enjoyable game, a well-done game, but in the end, just a game.

*Note: Yes, I know that this game requires a monetary subscription, thus prompting more of a focus on the game itself, but that is the choice of those who play.

In the end, maybe you missed that one achieve, or didn't win the Need roll for an item you've been killing yourself to obtain, but you had fun doing it and enjoyed the people you were with and maybe made a couple new friends.

That's always a win in my book.

How Decisions Affect Our Future

Have you ever sat down and thought about a decision you made in the past and followed it's 'consequence' to the present day? If you have done that, have you also wondered how different your life would be if you had made the decision differently?

Obviously, we are unable to go back in time and change the past. But the fascination is how the past affects the future in ways we could never imagine--for better or worse.

Case in point, today I was thinking about my really good friend back in Montana and was reminiscing about how we had met. Then I made a crazy discovery. Are you ready for a story?

*settles down in his comfy armchair*

Some of you have heard part of this story before, but for those who have not, here we go. It was April of 2008 and I was all set to graduate from college in a couple weeks. Several friends and I had just gone to the spring play the college had put on and we wanted to head out to a restaurant to eat. Only four of us ended up going, and we headed off to Chili's. My three friends got something to eat, but I really didn't have enough money for a full meal, so I just got water. But then, as I was flipping randomly through the drinks menu because I was rather bored, a drink caught my eye, so I ordered it (and yes, I was 21). Now, understand, I went to a Christian college and all alcoholic drinking was prohibited as long as you were enrolled at the college (that meant, no matter if you were on campus or off campus, you would still get in trouble). My friends were a little uncomfortable, but I knew they wouldn't say anything. However, I did not factor in that sitting a couple booths behind us was another group from my school. One of the kids saw what I had ordered and called up the deans. To cut down the story, I ended up getting kicked out.

(Now, before you get all riled up about this, please understand that age didn't matter over the rules of the college. All that is in the past and I graduated the following year with honors, so no hard feelings. The story is told for background purposes.)

Anyway, after I got kicked out, I of course had to head back home. After a few days at home, my parents suggested I get a couple jobs so I could raise the money I needed to pay for my final semester. So I went back to KFC (I had worked there during highschool, and during college Christmas breaks) and then got a night job working as a delivery driver at Pizza Hut. While working at Pizza Hut, I met this girl that was just simply amazing and we ended up becoming very good friends both at work and outside of work and have stayed close to this day.

Now you're probably thinking, 'Ok, get to the point already.'

My point: If I had not made that ridiculous decision to buy that alcoholic drink at Chili's back in college, resulting in my expulsion, I would have most likely never worked at Pizza Hut and would have most likely never met this girl who became a very close friend and a light in my life. It is truly amazing how something that started out as a terrible decision ended with a friendship to last a lifetime. (Yay for alcohol? =P)

So, although we can not predict the future, we can control our present choices. And the cool part is, we have no idea where those choices will lead us.

Life is crazy, huh?

State v. National

I would like to first preface this blog post by saying I do not support a lot of President Obama's policies. However, I still think he is a good person trying to make some important changes. Also, it is not my intent to offend anyone with this post.

And that leads me to today's blog of annoyance:

Tuesday's gubernatorial races, the media craze surrounding them, and the references made to President Obama.

For those of you who have no connection to the outside world, or don't know what "gubernatorial" means (heh, heh, it sure is fun to say/type though!), there were two governor races voted on this past Tuesday -- one in New Jersey and one in Virginia. The main talking points were the tight race in NJ, which has had a Democratic governor for a long time, and the huge lead the Republican candidate in Virginia had -- a state that had gone to Obama in the 2008 election.

Now, President Obama did some campaigning for both the Democratic incumbents -- and rightly so, being a Democrat. Obviously you want as many of your party in influential positions throughout the nation as you can get. But even with his strong backing, both states went to the Republicans (an almost unheard of event in NJ!).

Now, much of the media, especially FoxNews (and now a collective cringe), jumped on this outcome as possibly a hit against the president's policies and questioning if this was a hint of the 2010 Senate/House races.

**Ok, I want to interject here that I watch FoxNews alongside CNN and I also read the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. Just want to make clear there is no bias or anything here. Pure opinion.**

Now, here is where I get annoyed. The media keeps trying to tie in the outcome of these gubernatorial races with President Obama's policies. They keep asking the question, "Is this an indication of the voters turning back from supporting Obama as a result of some of the policies he is suggesting?" (More or less the standard question). Well, first off, these are STATE races based on STATE issues. It is my firm belief that Obama's policies had little to do with the way the voting went in NJ and Virginia, especially NJ.

In NJ, it was more or less a choice between the lesser of two evils. And after the whole corruption scandal recently, the voters decided on a change, even though the margin of victory wasn't huge.

In Virginia, a long-standing "purple" state, voters decided to go with a Republican governor again after not being satisfied with the job done by the Democratic incumbent. No real surprise here, in my opinion.

The crux of this annoyance is how the media kept harping on how the outcomes of the state elections reflected a snub on President Obama. In my opinion, voters were more concerned about the issues in their respective states at this point in time -- jobs, taxes, etc. Yes, Obama has been working on national issues concerning this, but at this point in time, the voters were focused on state issues -- what was going on right at home.

So, it is just annoying to me to read and listen to the news constantly questioning the president on issues on the state level!

"Hey! This TV show is doing well! Let's make a spinoff!"

First off, I apologize for not updating my blog regularly. I shall rectify this starting...sometime in the future. =D Just kidding...

Anyway, I know what you are thinking. 'What kind of title is THAT?' Well, it's a title that I tried to make witty and humerous without taking up the maximum title space. But I'm not here to write about the title. I'm writing about what the title means. So, let's begin...

This blog could be used against several TV shows, but I'm focusing on one in particular, mainly because I'm a fan of the parent show. I'm sure many of you have either seen or at least heard of this show:

I absolutely love this show. It is witty, humerous, and light at the same time it is dark, contentious, frustrating, etc. The characters are all their own person, meaning not one of them is the same in characteristics, thought processes, reactions, and the list goes on. Their interactions throughout the various episodes are intense, humerous, emotional, touching, frightening, etc.

So, with the obvious success of the above-mentioned show, CBS decided to air a brand new TV show alongside the new season of NCIS:

Whoa! What is this? NCIS goes to Los Angeles? Is that comparable to CSI going to Miami? I digress...

Anyway, after falling in love with the regular NCIS, I figured this new show would be pretty engaging, exciting, humerous, and everything you would expect from the parent show. Um...not so much. Sad to say, after two episodes, NCIS:LA as failed to really catch my attention. The premiere was lackluster at best, and the ensuing episode was just as bland.

Reason 1: Everyone is exactly the same, and what I mean by that is, there may be diversity in roles of the actors, but their characters', well, characteristics, are almost identical. There is not much interaction between the characters. They just seem to know everything about everyone and just take down bad guys. In contrast to the original NCIS, there is no "computer nerd", no "male chauvinist", no "can't-stop-thinking-of-girls guy", and no "goth forensic scientist", to name a few. NCIS:LA's characters just lack diversity in this way which causes a lack of true interaction between them. For those of you who have seen this show, maybe you differ in opinion, but this is what I think.

Reason 2: Did I miss something? Are these people undercover? They must be because none of them own a badge. Oh, and they have the worst crime scene investigation techniques ever. As of yet, I haven't seen the use of rubber gloves in a crime scene area or when combing through a suspect's house. Where is the professionality?! They just tell people they're NCIS and everyone just believes them! Hello!

Reason 3: If you ever thought NCIS was predictable (which I personally don't), then you'll be able to figure out the ending (whodunit) of NCIS:LA in the first two minutes. Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, but still, the show is pretty straightforward in its approach. Unfortunately, there are not many twists and turns yet. Granted only two episodes have concluded, but still, usually the premiere is meant to lure the viewer into watching more of the series. NCIS:LA did not really accomplish that goal, at least in my eyes.

Just because the original show was amazing does not mean the spinoff of it will be just as amazing. (There can be a lot of relation to this on the movie side of things). I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but when you're pitting the spinoff against its parent show, please make sure it's at least as good if not better. (Especially if they air back-to-back on the same network on the same night!)

Now, I understand this show is just starting out, so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it will get better and better as the show continues -- one can only hope. And for those of you out there who have seen it and liked it, that is completely fine. I'm more or less just pointing out several issues I've had with the show so far.

So, here's to hoping that this TV show spinoff turns things around and really becomes the blockbuster show people think it will be.

(Please comment below! Thanks)

Something Magical

At LeakyCon 2009, I went to a session by Time book critic and author, Lev Grossman. He was doing a session about writing and also promoting his new book, The Magicians. Having a love for the fantasy genre, I was intrigued by his new book and decided to purchase it. I had heard good things about it via tweets from friends, so I felt confident that I had made a good purchase. I finally finished reading it last night and decided to blog about it--kind of a review. So, if you have not read it yet and don't want to be spoiled...

THIS IS YOUR **SPOILER** WARNING

Yes, you have been warned....

Let me first say that this a totally different take on magic versus Harry Potter (although several nods are given to HP throughout the book which I will touch on). Having not really read any reviews on it and only reading the extract received at LeakyCon, I wasn't sure what to expect. I had in mind something like Harry Potter just from what I heard, but was curious as to the direction the book would take.

The book does loosely follow some of the construct of the Harry Potter world (i.e. hidden school of magic, different years at the school, etc.), but obviously not to the same degree. For one, the school is in America and it is a college rather than a sort of secondary school such as Hogwarts. Also, the magic is very different. These are all good because obviously copying JKR wouldn't go over well.

Anyway, one of the biggest things that really caught my attention was the type of magic used. It was more based on language skills and patterns of the hands versus conventional wands. Also, the spells used were more complex than the magic of HP. Grossman used a very unique style to convey the magic of Brakebills and that impressed me.

Something else that really caught my attention was the many references to the Chronicles of Narnia. If you read the book and didn't catch the correlation between Narnia and Fillory, well, then either you just didn't make the connection or have never read the Narnia books. At any rate, there is almost unmistakable similarities between the two fictional worlds, right down to the different buttons used to get into Fillory (the rings used in the Magician's Nephew). I won't go into too many details because I want you all who are reading this to read The Magicians and find out for yourself.

Unlike HP, the book does not really revolve around Brakebills and the education there (much to my suprise), nor like Narnia does it really center on the quests of a magical world that really is not as fictional as our main character, Quentin, figures. In my opinion, the main issue in the book is finding oneself. Is it being a magician? Is it finding a magical world and having a crazy adventure? Throughout the entire book, we see Quentin battling the issue of what really brings happiness, what really brings fulfillment in life.

And that leads me to some of the issues I have with the book:

First, it does not seem that there is any real center point for the plot to revolve around. We have Brakebills, Fillory, magic, New York, etc.: several aspects of the book and yet not one really takes center stage, in my opinion. It seems that the connection between Brakebills, the magic learned, Fillory, and the magicians is more abstract than concrete, meaning it is hard to weave these aspects together as they are presented in the book. This makes the plot hard to follow.

Second, the references to Narnia are, well, very blunt. It's one thing to come up with your own world, but it's something totally different to take something already made and just change around some names and places. No offense to Mr. Grossman, but I think the differences between Fillory and Narnia are very small. I can see how making a nod to a well-written series would be fine, but taking something already written and just recreating it, well, I think that is going too far.

Finally, the ending seems very anti-climatic compared to the build-up of the entire series. There seems to be too many loose ends at the final chapter to really give closure. Yes, Alice turns into a niffin but is that it? Did that water nymph really know what that horn did? And why didn't Jane Chatwin just turn back time to before the Chatwin kids had entered Fillory, saving everyone the trouble?

Overall, a very interesting book, but my suggestion would be to borrow it from either a friend or the library and read it first before buying it (not to keep anyone from buying it, of course, but it might not be for everyone).

Please comment below! Thanks.

HBP thoughts...finally

So I finally got around to writing out my critique of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. I've watched the movie twice so far: once at the midnight release, and the other a week later. It was pretty amazing both times, but as I'll talk about below, I have a few issues (but also a few praises).

First off, if you haven't seen this movie yet, your **SPOILER** alert is right now. Moving on...

The PG rating of Half-Blood Prince has always mystified me. I do not understand why Order of the Phoenix was rated PG-13 and Half-Blood Prince was not. Now, the rating scale could have changed somewhat over those two years, and maybe it did. But my problem is, why NOT make Half-Blood Prince a PG-13 movie? The books become darker and darker and yet it seems that much care is taken in preserving a PG rating.

My first issue (and this involves the rating, too) was the destruction of the Muggle bridge at the very beginning. I don't know if anyone else noticed, but every single Muggle made it off that wildly swinging and swaying and crumbling bridge safely. Now, obviously being on a bridge that is being destroyed by unknown methods is terrifying enough, granted. But seriously, how hard is it to have a few deaths to make it more realistic and to really bring to home the horrifying attacks the forces of Voldemort were making on the Muggle world? I think more could have been done with that scene to show the true terror of the Death Eaters.

The scene with finding Horace Slughorn was well done I thought. The repairing of the house was an awesome piece of special effects and Jim Broadbent did an excellent job as Professor Slughorn right from the very beginning when we find him in the chair (which was really cool!).

I had some issues with the Spinner's End scene. In the book, Bellatrix is trying to more or less stop her sister, Narcissa, from talking to Snape. But how it is portrayed in the movie, Bellatrix becomes more the instigator rather than protesting. She insists on the Unbreakable Vow when in the book, she is more shocked that Snape would agree to such a magical bond. The scene was well done for what it was, but I thought more could have been done to match the book.

I believe the whole issues between Ron, Lavender, and Hermione were well captured. Jessie Cave played Lavender really well. (Even I was annoyed by just watching her as Lavender!) Going along with the whole relationship issues in this movie, I think they were well covered without going too far overboard and straying from the book.

The cave scene was amazing! Enough said.

Overall, this movie was well done. I enjoyed the hilarity of Ron with the chocolates spiked with love potion, and Harry and Professor Slughorn's exchange at the greenhouse ("Harry!" "Sir!"). The scene with Harry facing down Snape wasn't as climactic as I had hoped, but it wasn't too bad. Also, there wasn't too much action in this movie. I was surprised, actually. The couple fights lasted only a short while and the Death Eaters entered and exited Hogwarts with no confrontation, which I was hoping for. I know that they are kind of saving for the huge battle in the Deathly Hallows movies, but still, it would've been nice to have some kind of small battle.

Anyway, those are my thoughts (at least the ones I can recall right now). Comment if you like!