Play: Winterbells

As an already popular game, Winterbells deserves the popularity it received by the casual gamers in cyberspace. While the game's concept is not new -- it is similar to other popular casual games like Icy Tower -- it is entertaining in its own merit. You control a rabbit whose aim is to jump on bells falling in a vertical scrolling screen, while your aim is to reach the highest score.

What's unique about this game is the design: the game just feels very smooth that even when you lose and begin a new game, you will not feel any discontinuity in the game. The smoothness is also evident in the motion of the rabbit following the cursor of the mouse just the way you will mean it to do. I didn't find the game very easy with the average try taking about a minute, but there are many videos all over the internet of people reaching incredible scores. The highscore is stored locally in the cache of the web browser. What's important is that it is a quick game to play, so you can pick a try or two in between your normal daily activities. The music is just exceptional, and together with the ease of gameplay are important factors of this game's popularity.

It is a simple, well-designed and stands as a proof that game-development is another form of art. While this type of games is usually called time-wasters, I didn't feel that wasted anytime at all playing it, because it was fun.

Score: 5/5

The Game

The Designer

Watch: Avatar

A vibrant journey that is engaging and convincing

Avatar is all about manifestation. The manifestation of a man in the form of a male Na'vi, as well as the manifestation of divinity in the form of the natural world. These parallel concepts, which are directly related to the movie's title, are the driving force of this journey that makes one rethink his choices in life by making connections between these concepts and our real world.

Pandora is a beautiful, colorful, and self-sustaining world, just like what our Earth had been about 100 years ago. It has its share of wild beasts and human-like Na'vis which, while may fight occasionally, live in harmony nonetheless. It is the flow of energy between all the creatures, no matter how different they are, that makes this place unique. A different kind of bond, a divine link which is referred to by the locals as a goddess named Eywa.

Things seemed destined to change though. Humans coming to Pandora were about to disturb its harmony forever. They did it before in their home (Earth) and there's no doubt they can do it again on Pandora. The movie shows us the triangle of business, science, and the military, and how they act together despite their somewhat different goals. The businessmen look for money, and the scientists look for knowledge, while the army men look for glory.

The journey takes place in the head of the protagonist, the former marine Jake Sully, who finds himself between a true clash of civilizations: the industrialist Humans and the naturalist Na'vis. Living as his Na'vi scientifically-developed avatar while asleep, he was soon to feel the other way around. The stark difference between both worlds is evident throughout the movie, and perhaps it was symbolized by Sully's loss of both legs as a human in contrast with his complete form as a Na'vi.

Technically, the movie is one of the best. The CGI-live action integration is so seamless in a way that makes some recent movies seem very old. The 3-D technology is a plus, helping the viewer to get into the story and feel the action even more without being a distraction, unlike many other 3-D movies. The writing is great, as well as the design of the elements comporting the natural life of Pandora which is nothing short of visual poetry.

Finally, the theme may draw parallels with previous movies. Avatar is not the first movie to be critical of the post-industrial disconnection from nature and the implications it had on the environment around us. Nor it is free from elements repeated in similar Hollywood-style epic movies. But despite all of this, Avatar is unique enough as a whole; a movie that is definitely worth watching.

Score: 4/5

Official Avatar Movie

He's Barack Obama

A new video about the American president is creating a huge buzz on the Internet. It is an animated short movie by JibJab showing the president as an American super hero who can solve all the world's problems in a blink of an eye. This politically satirical clip was watched by the president himself in the 65th annual Radio and TV correspondents dinner in Washington.

It is arguable JibJab's best effort till this day. While the movie clearly pokes fun at the extreme optimism among some of President Obama's supporters throughout the world, whether you find it poking fun at the president himself or not will depend on your political preference. Or maybe it pokes fun at the USA!

Pixar is still going UP.

Pixar's finishing of their first decade of movies couldn't have been better. UP has been in theater's for almost two and half weeks and it is doing great. There are even some speculations about it being one of the best performance of Pixar in terms of the box office. One can't help wondering why Pixar keeps going up?!

Having seen many animation movies lately, it is fair to say that Pixar is by far the leader in this industry. It is not hte techniques they use in the animation, it is not the amount of innovation in the way they render their scenes, it is something much more simple and much more appealing to the regular viewers that makes the difference between Pixar and the rest. It is their stories that appeal to all the ages. It is the worlds they create, not only by their stunning visuals, but by their incredible storytelling abilities also.

From a fish looking for it's son to a rat who wants to be a chef, and from those talking toys, to that old guy who wants to fulfill his late wife's dream; each story has something to laugh about, something to learn, and in some cases (especially with UP), something that will almost make you cry.

Pixar is taking 3D animation to a whole new level in a time when this genre began to be dominated by banal movies. It is doing what Disney had been doing with 2D animation until a decade ago. Now, with both companies unified, one can only expect the best to come.

Hurting your brain!

I was surfing the internet as usual until I landed on the BBC's website and found this article about the World Philosophy Day (which came 3 months ago). The article's title is, "Four Philosophical Questions To Make Your Brain Hurt."

Frankly, I never knew before this year that philosophy had a day too. A mother's day may sound good, a father's day maybe OK, even a water day might be useful, but philosophy!

Since my brain is usually hurting all the time, I decided to hurt it more. After all, I spent a lot of time of my short life trying to get answers to the toughest philosophical questions, so why not try these ones too? The writer is a lecturer of philosophy at the university of Glasgow. Thus I felt I won't be wasting my time.

Of all the four questions, only two I would consider brain hurting, the third and the fourth. Those are also the two questions I already thought about long time before reading this article, and I'm still thinking. The other two (the first and the second), the argument the writer made about them weren't even convincing for me to make a lot of thinking.

The first question is about killing one person to save the life of more persons. The writer gave us three hypothetical situations to think about.

1. Killing a healthy person and use his organs to save many unhealthy people.
2. Being a hostage yourself, you'll have to kill one other hostage so as to secure the release of all hostages. Otherwise all would be killed. You'd be released in either cases.
3. You're given a choice: Left, and five will be killed. Right, and one will be killed.

The writer tries to use the second and third situations as analogies to the first. It is true that the three cases have the same relation (killing a person to save many others), but looking closer, they're very different. Personally, I would not kill the healthy person (case 1), I would not kill the hostage (case 2), and I will choose right (case3). The reason? Well, only in case 3 I have no choice but to kill. The second case is the toughest to think about, but I will choose not to kill. It's all about direct responsibility in my opinion. To be indirectly responsible of the death of five is much better than being directly responsible of the death of one. Here, passivity is a much better choice. As fore case 1, it's a whole different situation. While the issue of direct responsibility holds here too, there's no urgency about it. Killing a random person who is not even part of the situation doesn't fit in the analogy.

Verdict: Pain is a reality of our world. As long as you are not directly causing it, you should accept its existence. You should work as hard as you can to eliminate or reduce it, given that you don't reside to relief pain by inflicting it upon others. Two wrongs don't make a right.

The second question is about our continued existence over time. In other words, what makes our personalities? Who are we?

As simple as the question might sound, we are yet to find a satisfying answer. But who said that we need answers? Thinking is a permanent process, and if we find satisfying answers, we will stop thinking.

The writer refrained from mentioning the word "soul" (maybe because it sounds unscientific), but for me, our existence is not determined only by the existence of our functional body or functional brain, but by both of them together and that's what I call the "soul." Take one of them away and the personality (soul) will be nonexistent. Swapping minds is mere science fiction, but if it is to happen, it will not mean swapping personalities.

Verdict: I am who I am. An evolving (but one) personality, affected by its surroundings and affecting them at the same time. As long as this loop is working and I feel it, I exist, otherwise, I don't.

The third question is about reality and illusion. What makes us sure that something exists when we can't even independently check if our senses are reliable?

Our senses are all what we have to check for reality. These are all the tools we've got. In collaboration with our brains, they give a meaning to our surroundings. Questioning the reliability of these tools mean that we live in nothing but an illusion; and since illusions do exist in life, why not life itself may also be an illusion?!

But wait. How come we are so sure that illusions exist? Even the existence of illusion was known to us through our senses.

Verdict: Our perception is what creates illusions. In optical illusions, two lines may look of identical lengths while in reality they are not. Our eyes see them in their real (unequal) length, but its our perception that make us think they are equal. And my perception is the product of my experience in this world, so even if life is an illusion, I can't check it out as I am part of it. Therefore, it is my reality.

The fourth question deals with the issue of freewill and predestination. Are they compatible with each other? Can they coexist?

I have to say that I thought about this subject many times. I think it is also related to the third question. This question is so complex that any answer of it will directly or indirectly contradict with some aspects of science and morality.

People usually think that it is either predestination or freewill. But I disagree. I am a believer in determinism, and as the writer said, randomness doesn't imply freewill. It would be bizarre to disregard cause and effect as one of the fundamental truths of our existence. It is what all sciences and philosophies are built upon.

Even if some random patterns appear in our world, that doesn't mean that there was not a cause. In relation with the third question, I see randomness as an illusion. It describes what we don't know, that's how we perceive it.

We perceive ourselves as having free will. Based on our experiences and our existence, this is our reality. Everyone can experience freewill while making the smallest choices in his life, like choosing what to wear for instance. Facts are based on our observations, our experiences, and that's why there's no doubt in my mind that I have free will. Even if all my choices were written down some billions of years ago, I don't know and can't know it. I only know what I can experience, and in that sense freewill and predestination can coexist,

Verdict: Think of it that way. You are a protagonist of a story. Within the story you have all the free will, but your actions are predestined by what's in every page. In your reality you make all the choices, while in the writer's reality, your choices are predictable. Different realities mean different perceptions.

American Elections 2008

In what is certainly a historic presidential election, today the Americans will choose their new president, a post that was occupied by one of the worst presidents in history for the last eight years. A host of tough challenges will face the new president that includes (but not limited too) a very weak economy, a lost war, a war being lost, instability in many regions of the world, and an environmental crisis that may affect the life on Earth as we know it.

While a huge contrast can be found between the main two candidates, there are still many undecided voters according to the most recent polls. It really is amazing how someone could be undecided in the very last day between two completely different paths. On what bases such a person will base his choice in the last hours, except for tossing up a coin? This way seems the only legitimate one for someone who couldn't make up his mind for that long.

One one hand we have McCain, a conservative, who seems to support every kind of war just because he's a war veteran. Although he had been for so long doing politics, he seemed lacking a lot of experience in his campaign that he chose a woman who knows almost nothing about politics to be his vice president and a potential president, he acted foolishly calling to cancel a debate so as to help the economy (obviously he wasn't successful), and he spoke about his opponent much more than he spoke about himself!

On the other hand, Barack Obama was able to build on of the strongest campaigns ever, and he seemed to be more experienced and stable throughout the whole campaign. But Obama spent a lot of money (from donors) in order to achieve this; and money is a very strong factor in this kind of elections. But the most important positive thing about Obama is that he seemed to have a plan; maybe he doesn't have one, but he seemed to. Obviously, if you speak more about yourself and what you're planning to do, you'll be in a much better position than just being a naysayer.

So, Obama seems closer to clinching the victory according to every single poll in the USA. But if this election was all over the world, McCain would have conceded loss long time ago. Indeed the whole world seems to favor Obama on McCain by a far margin and that's mainly because the whole world is sick and tired of the failed policies of the Republican party under the reign of George W. Bush. They know that McCain won't be very different.

"Change" was the keyword of these elections. The word was first used by Obama in the beginning of his campaign, but then, everyone wanted to be a part of the change. However, the word was linked more to Obama whose skin color and physical features certainly had an effect as well as his somehow leftist policies and his firm opposition to the war on Iraq. After his defeat of Hillary Clinton, he seemed to be the only hope for change since a change from a Republican conservative to another Republican conservative would bring less than 10% of change (including the names) to the white house. The American people seems to need more.

A more insightful look on those involved in this year's election would bring more people into consideration. Hillary Clinton was on of the most important players that even though she lost, she raised the bar of the Democratic party and got more people involved in the election (some die hard Hillary supporters even chose to choose McCain over Obama!). Another important woman is the VP Republican candidate Sarah Palin. A woman with no experience at all, brought by surprise to hold the second most important post in the American government; an unexpected but not very smart move from the McCain side. Another interesting person was Ron Paul, someone who seemed very odd sitting between all the Republican candidates in the early debates opposing the war of Iraq with strong words that weren't even matched by some of the Democratic party. And last but not least, Ralph Nader. He's not new to the presidential elections, but he would probably bring real change to Washington if he was ever to be elected.

With all the focus on the main two parties, one wonders why those other candidates care about campaigning when they are standing a zero percent chance to get to the white house. The only reason would be to spread their ideas which is really good. But still, why there are no many independent voters in the USA. Most of the voters choose their candidate just because of the color of the party he represents; there are no much emphasis on the policies as there is on what the parties represents. If you're a conservative or a liberal, you know what colors you'r choosing. If you'r a member of the small group of independents and not leaning to any of the main candidates, then either waste your vote on another candidate, abstain from voting, or toss up the coin. More independent voters mean more choices, and therefore better options.

It is just a few hours until the name of the next president of the USA will be known. The whole world is waiting eagerly for a change. But maybe they shouldn't. Whoever the candidate will be, all changes will be minor compared to the amount of instability brought by the current administration. A local change could happen in America, but on the global scale, we should expect the worst so that we will not be disappointed.

The world is too hot to get cold. Or is it?

Since the beginning of the Russian-Georgian conflict, there hasn't been a day that has passed without me hearing a reference to an upcoming cold war. In developing countries, many dream of the end of a unipolar world; they don't want the USA to be the only superpower in the world as they think that the emergence of another superpower will make the world more peaceful and just. On the other hand, some folks in Russia as well as the USA are equally fascinated by the idea. But the question remains: Is another cold war really inevitable?

Looking at the state of the world right now, it seems that no one is ready for another cold war. America has enough problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it won't be able to open yet another front, not even with Iran. Russia also has its own problems and it isn't powerful enough to face the USA and all its followers.

But even that reality won't deter cold-warmongers from keeping on speaking about the cold war. The common thing between those people in both camps is that they are driven by some sort of arrogant nationalism. American cold-warmongers keep on searching for potential cold enemies, whether it is China, Russia, or even - at certain times - France! They have been alarmed by the rise of Russia under Putin's rule, and they don't like it. They just want America to remain as the only superpower, and they are afraid that any other nation maybe on the way to challenge them. As for the Russian cold-warmongers, they are exactly the opposite. They can't forget the days of the Soviet Union when they were head to head with the USA, and their national pride make them dream about a revival of these days.

One may think that Georgia was caught between all of this, but the reality is that Georgia brought all this to itself. A small and weak country like this don't even have a chance to beat Russia; and if they thought that the USA would stand by them militarily, they were gravely mistaken. They didn't gain anything except for hearing some opportunistic American politicians saying stuff like "We are all Georgians," when prior to this conflict, most Americans didn't know that there is another Georgia other than theirs!

Now it seems that the conflict brought the situation to a temporal, but long, deadlock. Maybe the world is too hot for a cold war, but it is certainly not that hot for a cold peace.