Two German guards, both raised Catholic, were both deeply disturbed by what they witnessed in Auschwitz. Though they had long ago rejected the superstitions of their parents' religion for more enlightened modern philosophies, their consciences stilled panged them. Eduard, the younger of the two, cautiously asked in a hushed tone if a "final solution" for Herr Mengele might be the moral thing to do. Claus could not believe his ears. Even as the thought had entered his mind nights before, he knew he had to put a stop to talk like this before it got out of hand. "I believe that anyone can come to the truth. Herr Mengele deserves the chance to turn away from this evil. I cannot condone the taking of his life."


thoughts?

Along the lines of "me on the dating scene," here's a script for a movie in which I'm transported to an alternate universe. In this scene, I'm working closely with a beautiful and brilliant scientist, played by Amanda Tapping, to try and figure out how I can get home to warn the people in my universe about the coming Goa'uld invasion.

And before you ask, I have no idea where this came from, which is a statement that could be made about virtually every thought I've ever had.

*music plays in the backgound*

Me: "That's pretty music, what is it?"

Scientist: "Mozart's 64th symphony, if I'm not mistaken."

Me: "64th? That's not right. Mozart's 41st symphony was his last, written shortly before his death in 1791."

Scientist: "No, you're mistaken. He wrote 98 symphonies, before he finally died in 1836."

Me: "What? You mean Mozart didn't die young in this universe?"

Scientist: "No of course not. You mean he did in yours?"

Me: "Yes, at the age of 35."

Scientist: "You mean your Mozart never lived long enough to write his London symphonies? You mean you've never heard his greatest opera, 'The Little Emperor'?"

Me: "No! Where can I get a copy of these? I must listen to them?"

Scientist: "You can borrow my complete Mozart collection."

Me: "That's fantastic! New music by Mozart! This will be incredible! I'm not sure I want to go back to my universe now! Oh, if your Mozart lived longer, that means he would have lived long enough to have been influenced by Beethoven!"

Scientist: "Who?"

Me: "Don't tell me you've never heard of Ludwig von Beethoven. German composer? Eroica? Emperor Concerto? Pastoral symphony? Ode to Joy? Fidelio?"

Scientist: *blank stare*

Me: *look of shock and horror* "No! You damned dirty apes! Also, KAAAAAAAHN!"

This is when I break my glasses and am unable to spend the post-apocalyptic future reading, and it also turns out that the scientist cut her hair to buy me a silver chain for my pocket watch, which I sold to buy her a set of combs for her hair.

Topic for discussion: would you prefer to live in our universe, where Mozart died at the age of 35, but we have Beethoven, or would you rather live in the universe where Beethoven never existed, but Mozart lived until the age of 80, becoming a greater composer every year?

Also, the other universe is being invaded by the Goa'uld.

A Very Important Theological Question.

Alternate title: Brits have way cooler TV shows than we do.

Pop Quiz.

Q. In a modern movie/TV show, how do you tell if a character is evil?

A. Count the number of crucifixes on their wall. To wit:

In this screenshot from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "Where the Wild Things Are", the gang visits an old lady. In the introductory shot of her home, we can see five crucifixes, a statue and picture of Our Lady, a picture of St. Michael the Archangel, and numerous other religious pictures and items that I could not identify. As soon as we are shown her home, I thought to myself "she's evil." A couple minutes later, we find out that she is, in fact, evil. She ran an orphanage and would abuse the children in some manner if they sinned against chastity.

But then I thought it interesting that my first reflex was to think her a villain (and also interesting that I was right). Now why would I think that? Why would I, when shown a character with lots of religious artifacts, reflexively assume the character is evil? Is this perhaps a conditioned response?

Let's play a game. You've got ten seconds. Name, off the top of your head, three positive portrayals of priests from film or TV.

Bah, that is trivial. I can name four in that time: Gregory Peck in both The Keys of the Kingdom and The Scarlet and the Black, Bing Crosby in The Bells of St. Mary's, and Spencer Tracy in The Devil at 4 O'Clock.

Now let's add a twist. Name three made after 1970. That were also mainstream films.

Hmm.... The Scarlet and the Black was made in 1983, but was a TV movie. The Keys of the Kingdom was made in 1944, The Bell's of St. Mary's was 1945, and The Devil at 4 O'Clock was 1961.

Ok, well just name three mainstream portrayals of priests from movies made after 1970.

I come up with Edward Norton in Keeping the Faith, Linus Roache in Priest, and, um... wasn't there a priest in Chocolat? Ok, that took me more than 10 seconds. And none of those are exactly what I'd call stellar examples.

Let's open this up a little wider. Name three portrayals of devout Christians from movies made after 1970.

Well, I heard (though I have not seen the movie) that there was an Evangelical Christian family in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. There's also the documentary Jesus Camp. And didn't Matt Damon play a Catholic in The Good Shepherd? (Which, if memory serves, is the movie that prompted a leading Jewish periodical to write something like "apparently, Catholicism is the last religion which it is acceptable to insult." Of course I've gone and lost the blasted quote.)

It seems that in recent years Hollywood has forgotten how to make movies that show priests, Catholics, or even Christians in general in a positive light. 

Now, one villain who happens to be Christian would be no concern. But when there is a general, overwhelming trend, I call shenanigans. Suppose there was a general, overwhelming trend for portraying blacks, or women, or homosexuals as villains? Do we suspect that there wouldn't be cries of foul, and claims that Hollywood was bigoted?

And this touches back on some of my points about PC: why should I worry about offending the hyper-sensitive feelings of those who do not give a rat's ass if they offend me? Is it because, as a Christian, I should avoid offending my neighbor? But that's my philosophy, not theirs, and they specifically reject it. If they are to convince me to play the PC game, they need to take a principle from their rule book, not mine. "You should abandon your philosophy and come to mine because your philosophy says you should" is not a valid argument, for once I've abandoned my philosophy, why should I follow what it says?

* * *

The poison of PC can certainly be insidiously evil, turning people to hate those whom PC disapproves of, when used to create shows. I think my story of being conditioned to think a character with many religious artifacts is evil is evidence of that. But when it enters into the story as a motivation for the characters, it can turn from something twisted and wrong into something comically stupid.

Take, for example, the old TV show Seaquest: DSV, that show which was so dripping with PC that Justin Long once confused it for his co-star. In one episode, I think the only one I watched in its entirety, the captain of Seaquest is ordered to put an end to some environmental terrorists. The captain refuses, because the terrorists have been sinking whaling vessels. It doesn't seem to bother him that the terrorists are, y'know, murdering people. But because the people that are being murdered are not PC, the captain does not seem to care about them. He prepares to resign his commission, refusing to follow the order. In the end, he finally does go after the terrorists when they accidentally miss their intended target and sink a cruise ship. No one seems to question if the lives aboard the cruise ship could have been saved if the captain did his duty in the first place.

Another example comes from Star Trek: Enterprise. In one episode, the Enterprise encounters an alien civilization that is dying from some genetic disease. The crew of the Enterprise, with their advanced technology, are able to create a cure to the disease, but Captain Archer decides not to give it to the aliens, because there is another race on that planet which are mistreated as slaves by the civilization. Apparently, Archer thinks that genocide is an appropriate response. It's interesting that Archer chooses to let the entire civilization be wiped out, without considering if one of the aliens might be that planet's William Wilberforce. In his eyes, none of the aliens are worth saving because some mistreat their slaves. There is a term for this. It is called "bigotry". In the end, Dr. Phlox pats Archer on the back and expresses his pleasure that the captain did the right thing. This was about the time I stopped watching Enterprise. (An interesting note: one of the arguments Phlox gave for why the civilization should not be saved, is that the aliens are dying from a genetic disease, and their slaves appear to be more intelligent than the aliens let on. Phlox posits that this is just evolution's natural progression, that the old race is dying out to make room for the new, and they have no business standing in the way. Well, there is a term for this view of evolution as a guided and benevolent force. It is called "Intelligent Design" and it is the very definition of irony that so many Evolutionists see evolution in this way, and insist that we should not interfere with Her will.)

In a recent episode of Buffy (well, recent for me; it aired nine or ten years ago), the spirit of an American Indian tribe goes on a rampage through Sunnydale, slitting the throats of its citizens (in the show, Buffy berates one character for using the term "Indian" and insists the proper term is "Native American"; also ironic, in that most Indians do not object to the term "Indian"). Buffy finally corners the spirit, but hesitates, unable to deliver the killing blow. Willow explains her indecision, stating that the Indians were peaceful—"fluffy, indigenous kittens", in her own words—until the Evil Christian Europeans came along and tortured, enslaved, and civilized them (*gasp*), and that the spirit of the tribe is only out seeking justice. No one seems to care that he is seeking justice on those born hundreds of years after the alleged atrocities. This was the first episode that I couldn't finish watching, because the bullshit-o-meter—that most useful device which measures the BS of PC things in sucky TV shows—not only hit the pin at ten, it pushed past the pin, wrote in the number eleven, pointed at that, quivered, uttered the rite of extreme unction, and burst into flame.

If PC is the philosophy that guides the creation of your show, such that the only Christians that show up are evil, I can accept that. No one has ever perfectly lived up to Our Lord's example, and many Christians have missed the point entirely. I'm willing to accept that—through some statistical fluke—the only ones who make it into movies and TV shows are evil (probably not that much of a fluke; Hollywood is a hard place to survive without turning to the Dark Side). But when PC is the philosophy that guides your characters, then you have lost me. When your characters do not do what is right, and in fact sometimes do just the opposite (that is, what is evil, for those of you keeping score at home), I lose sympathy for them and cease to care if they win. They are no longer "the good guys" but instead become "the morally confused guys who sometimes happen to defeat other morally confused guys, if it suits them."

In essence, when you base the meta-philosophy of your story around PC, you create something potentially insidieous and evil. When you base the internal philosophy of your characters on PC, you create something much worse: a bad story.

* * *

(I have here a long screed on Buffy season 4. Since it assumes a detailed knowledge of the Whedon-verse, that most of my readers don't have, it is optional. Nothing to see here, move along.)

Watching season 4 of Buffy has been very enlightening. Up until Joss' latest show, Dollhouse, the only works of his I'd seen were the first three seasons of Buffy, Firefly, Serenity, and Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog, all of which I found delightful, and like most other nerds, I was willing to declare Joss to be my new master. In fact, Serenity is—and I say this with no hyperbole—probably the greatest SF film ever made. Those of you following me on Twitter know that it is now difficult for me to watch that film, because every time I do, I weep, knowing that Space Pirates is not, and never can be, that damned good. But when I started watching Dollhouse, something felt off. Firstly, Joss' signature clever dialogue is missing. Secondly, well, none of the characters are really that likable. In fact, the only one I can really get behind is Boyd Langton (played by Harry Lenix, from Matrix: Revolutions). There are also—and this is surprising for Joss—absolutely no strong or likable female characters in Dollhouse. And while Joss is normally hit-and-miss with his women (for every Kaylee, there is an Inara), it's odd that he should go 0-for-5.

(Before you think that I dislike the show, I should mention that even though the pilot fell flat and the first 4 or 5 episodes weren't particularly memorable, the plot did pick up later in the season, and ended strong. And Alan Tudyk is awesome.)

But Buffy, season 4, has been sort of an eye-opener. As it turns out, Joss is not infallible, and that sometimes his characters just aren't that great. Season 4 has been doing a wonderful job of destroying the characters that have been built up so far. Xander, the comic relief, hasn't developed at all in four seasons, and remains as one-dimensional as he was to begin with, only now the joke is less funny, as it's four years old. But now he's also impotent and is routinely dominated by his girlfriend, who he is powerless to stand up to and seems incapable of really loving her (his relationship is actually an interesting metaphor on fornication; the more sex he has with his girlfriend, the more impotent he becomes with her in everything non-sexual). Giles—the wise mentor and perhaps my favorite character—has been trashed; as it turns out, he has a "friend with benefits" who periodically flies out from England to be with him. Willow is turning lesbian (which in itself is interesting: I thought the argument of the homosexual activists was that homosexuality wasn't something that just turned on or off, and that's why those therapists that seek to help gay men become straight were stupid and evil), and in one recent episode has to decide between her old boyfriend, now come back, and her new love, a girl who also practices Wicca with her. And here, I'm thinking why does she have to choose between them? I mean, if you're abandoning sexual ethics in favor of homosexuality, why not go all the way and embrace polyamory as well? Why hold back? (Every time Willow mentions her Wicca, I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton in Heretics: "All that genuinely remains of the ancient hymns or the ancient dances of Europe, all that has honestly come to us from the festivals of Phoebus or Pan, is to be found in the festivals of the Christian Church. If any one wants to hold the end of a chain which really goes back to the heathen mysteries, he had better take hold of a festoon of flowers at Easter or a string of sausages at Christmas. Everything else in the modern world is of Christian origin, even everything that seems most anti-Christian. The French Revolution is of Christian origin. The newspaper is of Christian origin. The anarchists are of Christian origin. Physical science is of Christian origin. The attack on Christianity is of Christian origin. There is one thing, and one thing only, in existence at the present day which can in any sense accurately be said to be of pagan origin, and that is Christianity." QFT) And Buffy, who was previously the poster-girl for chastity (her first love, quite literally, lost his soul, and her second abused and discarded her; you'd think she'd learn) is now in a relationship with so much sex involved that in one episode, they are too busy having sex to help their friends fight off ghosts. Her boyfriend, while I'd like to like him (he's a Marine and also, it's implied, Catholic) thinks with his genitals just a bit too much. When a female character sleeps around, I usually feel pity for her. When I male character does it, I feel contempt.

Lest you think that I don't like the show, I remind you that I still enjoy it. The plots are still interesting, the dialogue still witty. It's just merely a reminder that Joss sometimes writes unlikeable and unmemorable characters. And sometimes they all end up in one show. When I saw Firefly, I thought Inara was the exception, and that his characters tended to be better than that. After Dollhouse and Buffy season 4, I see that Firefly is the exception (although so far I like the characters in Angel, though I'm only in the first season).

Joss frequently loses me with the sex in his shows. Very few characters have healthy sexual relationships (Zoey and Wash from Firefly are the only two that come to mind) and many are destroyed by their promiscuity. One of the biggest disappointments in Firefly was in the episode "Out of Gas", when we discovered that the only difference between Kaylee and Inara is that Inara gets paid. I have high hopes for Angel, though. It's been established that the title character must remain chaste, or he will turn evil.

* * *

Buffy isn't the only show that has lost me with characters. The new Battlestar Galactica was very intense, and had very colorful and interesting characters to begin with, but by the end of the show, each and everyone had ceased to be likable, ending with the formerly-noble Admiral William Adama, who is shown visiting a strip club in one of the last episodes.

Stargate SG-1 did better. The characters never betrayed me, but the writers seemed to think that the last two seasons would be a wonderful way to make the point: "Religion = bad".

It was my general frustration with the state of SF TV shows that lead me to draw the following comic, in the style of XKCD:

Programming contest!

The prize is a bag-o-marshmallows to whomever can come up with the most efficient way to solve the "Write, efficient code for extracting unique elements from a sorted list" problem.

Apparently everyone else on the web is content to post the question as a possible interview question. Well, I'm not interviewing for anything. I actually need better way to do this. Sure, I have some ideas, but I can't help thinking there is an optimal way to do this (my head keeps going back to the 2 bowling balls being dropped from the building... I can't help thinking there is a logical connection...).

Some quick background so you understand that the half-arsed check-every-item-in-the-array solution is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for something that minimizes the number of reads I have to do since this algorithm will actually be applied to reading off a file, not an in memory array. I can guarantee you that the list is in order and that I can traverse the list like an array. So we can treat this particular problem like searching an array.

Consider also that I have to read 339,712 records. So think of an array that long with at least 100 duplicates per unique value. The actual number of duplicates per value is of course unknown. I want to avoid reading as many of those duplicates as I can. The one thing in my favor is that I know that they are all in order. Another thing that is clear to me is that I know the high and low values, so I should be able to deduce the maximum number of unique values. Of course you yourself probably saw that too.

Treat this contest like a C++ or VB contest of course. Answers like “SELECT DISTINCT column_name FROM table_name” will be laughed at and will owe me a bag of marshmallows.

Just to give you a head start (since I actually want the darned answer ASAP), I think that since I know the maximum number of unique elements, there must be an optimal number of jumps I can make through the array. I should compare at those jump points and decide whether or not to investigate the areas in-between my jumps based on the comparison result. Just the same as there was an optimal number of floors to skip in the bowling ball problem, I think there is an optimal number of records to skip here. How do I get that value? Following that, what is the most efficient way to search in-between my jumps? Or am I way off?

Please enlighten me and receive a bag of marshmallows in exchange.

Stackable Kitteh Storage.

Quote of the Day/Week/Month.
Posted here because it's too long for twitter.

The second fight scene is so stupid and so lacking in motive and logic that not only was my suspension of disbelief unsuspended, it fell to the ground along with the aching jawbone of my incredulity, nay, it was driven below the bedrock as if by a piledriver, and ended up somewhere south of a coal mine shaft. The stupidometer — that most useful device which measures the suckitude of things that suck in sucky movies — not only hit the pin at ten, it pushed past the pin, wrote in the number eleven, pointed at that, quivered, uttered the rite of extreme unction, and burst into flame.

QFT, John C. Wright.

Relax 4 Dead.

So I've been playing a lot of Left 4 Dead lately. It's a survival/horror zombie shooter, with a big emphasis on cooperative play. It's fantastically fun, but it's also very gory and very intense.

Anyways, I present to you some gameplay footage from Left 4 Dead, but with our more sensitive viewers in mind, it has been edited with Relax-O-Vision during the more frightening or intense parts.

So how was your weekend?

Mine was great! I got to have lunch with Danica Patrick. Turns out her husband is a friend of a friend/coworker, and I was offered a free pit/paddock pass plus the VIP treatment at the Milwaukee Mile. Her husband Paul is an awesome guy, and although I'd never met him before that day, by the end we were all sharing a bottle of Gentleman Jack at the Patrick bus (without Danica, she was busy qualifying and signing autographs). Here are a few pictures I took from the weekend:



Click on the slideshow to go to the Picasa gallery for bigger pictures.

My friend/coworker with the connections and I carpooled to the race with our boss, who bought a Corvette Z06 recently. After the race on Sunday he took me out for a spin, and HOLY CARP THAT'S A RACE CAR. It goes 100 MPH in second gear, although we never got there because even without flooring it, the traction control kicked in well below redline, plus the speed limits in the area weren't nearly high enough for it. It literally pins you to your seat with the acceleration; that's how fast it is.

Fangirl SQUEEE!!!

*Dies*

Dear Telltale,

Please find enclosed my first born child.

TYVM,

Joe

A pirate I was meant to be, trim the sales and roam the sea!