Aye aye, Capy... er, cavy

Aye ayes.

Hideously ugly and decidedly creepy little critters.

I was happily trawling through Zooborns the other day, looking at some of the new and wonderful what-nots born into zoos in the past few months, when I came across these:



No, those aren't aye ayes. Those are cavies. Essentially giant rodents, cavies are like rabbits which forgot they weren't kangaroos. Yes, I know rabbits aren't rodents, but rather lagamorphs. That doesn't seem to stop the cavies from looking like rabbits which forgot they weren't kangaroos. The fact that they are neither lagamorphs nor macropodidae is irrelevent.

Anyway, I was looking at this picture, thinking: "My, that's one of the oddest looking critters I've seen in quite a while". And then I scrolled down to the next animal.

You know how, sometimes, you see something so startling that you can't help letting lose a little scream? Yeah.

Aye ayes are the kind of animal which always startle. Even if you know what to expect, you suddenly see a picture of an aye aye and you feel like you've just stumbled into a planet where demonic little goblins exist, and you've just bumped into one.

I can see why, in their native Madagascar, aye ayes are often killed on sight. If I had a weapon and was used to using it, I possibly would have damaged my computer.

I understand they're perfectly nice members of the lemur family. That doesn't make them any less startling.

See for yourself.

Google and Mac

You know, I still have a strange premonition that, eventually, the future of the world will be decided by a battle between Google and Mac that involves people in giant robot suits (that seem to have all of the same features but in slightly different configurations) fighting it out over the streets of New Tokyo.

I'm reasonably sure world domination is the eventual goal of both companies. I'm also reasonably sure that such a thing will lead to our eventual doom.

But still, as long as Google keeps entertaining me with it's themed search engine logos, I'm probably going to come down on the Google side of the Wall.

25th anniversary of the Buckyball? Celebrated by replacing the central "o" with a 3D, spinnable buckyball model? That's just cool, dude.

Extreme beginnings

I'm not sure, but I think I have to have it:

http://store.glennz.com/exbe.html

Actually, I'm almost sure.

I have to have it.

Gibt es Leben auf dem Mars?

I was discussing American remakes of British shows with a friend of mine the other day when I mentioned how much I enjoyed the American version of Life on Mars. I was a fan of the British version, and was dreading the American remake, but I was rather pleasantly surprised.

Generally speaking, American remakes annoy me. The actual shows annoy me, and the very fact that they exist annoys me. Americans are smart enough to deal with other accents and cultures (or, at least, they should be), and I do not like the fact that their self-appointed nannies (viz., the studio executives, network bosses and publishers) feel it is their responsibility to make sure Americans never have to deal with other cultures.

They say Americans can't deal with foreign accents, British humour, products they can't find on their own shelves or subtitles. I think most Americans probably could, if they were given half a chance. So often the American versions are practically identical to the original - they even use the same scripts, barely changing more than one or two words. This has the effect of making the American version feel like a cheap copy. It's the same show, only badly acted for the sake of a population who, apparently, can't cope with irony or subtlety.

Original American shows can be as challenging, interesting and full of irony and subtlety as the overseas programmes they theoretically can't cope with. So, if they can rise to the challenge of their own shows, and they can cope with a copy that's practically identical to the British original, why on earth would anyone assume they can't cope with the British original? Nine times out of ten, the American remake is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. And then it only lasts one season anyway, no one likes it, and they cancel it. After that, of course they aren't going to show the British version, are they? After all, Americans didn't even like the American version.

Oh, but if only our sad little story could end there. No, American networks sell their television programmes to other countries in packages, and they make sure they sell these remakes in those packages (must make money somehow). So, here in Australia, we often get to see the crappy American remake no-one liked long before anyone thinks to import the British original. By then, we've already seen all of the major plot-lines and jokes done badly. It doesn't matter how good the British original might be, it's already a little bit spoiled.

Ah, American cultural imperialism - making sure everything is crappy for everyone on a global level.

I had heard about Life on Mars a year or so before it actually came to Australia. When I first read about it, the second season of the British version had already screened in Britain, and the American remake was in the works. I suspected we'd probably get the American version before someone bought the British version, and was pleasantly surprised when we got both seasons of the British version on ABC (which once stood for "Another British Comedy", but changed in recent decades to "Another British Crimeshow") before the American version was screened by one of the commercial stations.

The more I saw of the British version, the more I liked it - and the more I worried about how badly the American version was going to kill it.

I have this hope, you see. It never leaves me, in spite of previous experiences. This hope is that, if the Americans are going to go to the bother of remaking something, they'll at least make something significantly different and interesting in it's own right - something that justifies the fact that they didn't just watch the original. I am usually let down, and the first episode of the US LoM implied I was going to be let down again. Then I watched the second episode, and they started to shake things up a little bit. By the time I watched the third episode, I realised that someone had finally done what I always hoped an American remake would do - they had taken a few of the plot points and concepts from the original, but had used them in a new and interesting way rather than simply re-hashing the original with American accents.

Now, LoM is one of the few shows that actually warranted an American remake. Part of the hook of the British show was the fact that it drew on the nostalgia Gen Xers have for London as they saw it on TV shows from the 70s. It was, as the creators often said, a show set in a 1970s cop show world. I didn't grew up in London in the 70s, but I did watch a lot of British repeats in the 80s, so I was very familiar with this world. That was part of the reason why the show hooked me so deeply.

Americans, of course, would be much less familiar with London cop shows from the 70s. Their own cop shows showed a completely different world. The culture was different, the clothes were different, the music was different and the racial mix was different. It made perfect sense to remake that programme for an American audience using 1970s New York as the setting. Apart from the first episode, which was largely copied from the original, the rest of the show seemed to grow organically from this new place. It was a different show, which seemed to be dancing with with the original rather than imitating it. I loved it.

I also loved the fact that the ending really annoyed me. I know that sounds weird, but the ending of the original really annoyed me, and the American version annoyed me just as much but for completely different reasons. Different ending, equally annoying. Loved it. Besides, I don't think it's possible to end that show (no matter where you set it) in a good way. All endings would be ultimately annoying.

Anyway, I've been thinking lately that I'd love to see a German remake of the show. London in the 70s may be strikingly different to London today. New York in the 70s may be strikingly different to New York today. But Berlin? That practically was a different planet. Imagine a cop getting hit by a car in modern Berlin and waking up on the Eastern side of the wall in 1973? Not only is he solving crimes in the "dark ages" (technologically speaking), but he's gone from being in Western Europe during the time of the Eurozone to being in a Soviet country at the tail end of the Cold War.

Now that would be a very interesting show to watch.

Shooters and Fishers

Well, we've gone and elected ourselves a hung parliament.

That means we don't have an elected government until they've sorted out the preferences, which is kind of fun, and not entirely new. After all, we haven't had an elected Prime Minister for the past couple of months.

Anyway, the way I look at it I can't complain. After all, I deliberately wasted my votes this year.

I often deliberately waste my votes. I'm worse than a swing voter, I'm an anarchic one. Every once in a while I'll care who gets into power because I'll actually believe that one party is worse than the other, but most of the time I believe we get offered a choice between red jelly-fish and blue jelly-fish. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're still going to get a jelly-fish.

Last election, I cared. Phillip Rudd ran a campaign I could actually respect. This never happens in Australian politics. I can't stand politicians who spend most of their time telling me why I shouldn't vote for the other guy - please just stick to telling me why I should vote for you!

Now, Rudd did a little bit of "don't vote for the other guy", but most of his campaign focused on "this is what I want to do". Sure, most of it was rubbish and he couldn't deliver in the time frame he thought he could, but it was still someone standing up and saying "vote for me because I think I can do something" rather than "vote for me because the other guy is trying to sell us to crack addicted cannibals". The mud slinging and fear mongering were pretty much all from the side of the Liberals, last time.

This time, everyone was doing it. Back to the "red jelly-fish or blue jelly-fish" selection. So I went back to voting anarchically.

In past years, when I really didn't care one way or another, I used to randomly select my candidates based on some arbitrary and pointless quality - for example, whoever had the most Ls in their name. Then I started really hating everyone in both of the major parties, and went for the Democrats just because they weren't the other guys - and then, of course, the Democrats imploded. After that I started voting for minor parties that didn't have a hope of winning. I make a point of choosing whomever I believe will not win under any circumstances and voting for them.

Last election, I wanted Labour to win, so I voted for them. This election I preferred Labour to Liberal, but the Labour candidate for my area was someone I couldn't vote for in good conscience. The man was mayor of the town for 12 years and the number of things he did for the region can be counted on one hand.

The thing about Federal Elections is that people tend to forget they are local elections. You aren't really voting for the prime minister, you are voting for your local member of parliament. If the local Labour candidate is the worst candidate on the list, then sensible people don't vote for him. Thus, they don't vote for Labour.

So this year, for the House of Representatives, I had the choice of voting for the candidate I didn't want (Labour), the party I didn't want (Liberal), the party I don't respect (Family First) or the party I don't care about - which hadn't even bothered to advertise their candidate in my area (Greens). Fine choice. I went with the nobodies I didn't care about, obviously.

Then for the Senate I just picked a party that a) didn't have a hope of winning, b) amused me and b) had the opposite views to the party I voted for on the other ballot. I may as well go for balance. It's not like I've got anything else to go for.

So, for the first time in my life, I voted for the Shooters and Fishers Party. I'd never heard of them before, they would probably never have a hope in hell of having any influence on the government and you couldn't get further away from the Greens if you tried.

Plus, the name amused me greatly. "Shooters and Fishers Party". One day I'm going to start up my own political party and call it the "Legalise Ferrets Party". We'll largely stand for making ferret ownership legal in Queensland, but just to ensure we can also be relevant to other states and territories we'll also make a point of campaigning to stamp out daft laws across the country.

Of course, today I actually looked up the Shooters and Fishers Party and discovered they campaign against national parks (of which I'm quite fond), so now I wish I'd voted for the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.

Interestingly, the Shooters and Fishers ended up with 1,490 votes in my district alone for this election (the Fishing and Lifestyle Party blitzed past them on 2,411), but no one voted for the actual candidates. This means that approximately another 1,489 people also thought "what the heck" and just ticked the party box on the ballot paper. Sixty-one of them went to the same polling place I did. All up, 73,174 people voted for them. Some may have even done so on purpose.

Next time I'll try voting for the Citizens Electoral Council or the Socialist Alliance - they tied for bottom place in my district on 55 votes a piece. Either that or the Legalise Ferrets Party.

Go the LFP!

Mudila - or - Yin, Yang and Laulud

So, I found this site yesterday that is...

Well, it's...

That's to say it's...

Well, it just is.

Have you ever encountered something that was so awful you want to tell everyone how bad it is, yet so useful that you also want to recommend it to people?

I'm not talking about one of those "so bad it's good" kind of things, where the awfulness is actually the charm, but rather something that is equally bad and good.

This site is the source of my bipolarisation:

http://mudila.lastekas.ee/

It's a site designed to help Estonian kids improve their language skills. It has songs, games and activities as well as sections where you can work on learning vocabulary. It's clearly designed for children between the ages of three and six, and has the option of using subtitles in Estonian or Russian, so I'd say it's probably intended for Estonian preschoolers.

It's terrible. Really and truly terrible. The songs are awful, the animation is terrible, the games are designed in such a way that you can't repeat the question (or the answer, if you missed it), the animation is terrible, the music is inane, there are no explanations for anything and the animation is terrible.

Did I mention that the animation is terrible?

And yet...

And yet it's actually quite useful. The option to play "easy" games entirely within the Estonian vocabulary (no English language support at all) was fantastic. I found the songs and games helped to reinforce some of my existing vocabulary and expand on it with new words that I could work out from the context (and then confirm using a dictionary). Repeating the songs and games helped it to sink in a little better, and even just pottering around on the site for half-an-hour made me feel like I was making progress.

So, I'd play a game, or watch a song, and think, "Oh, good lord, that was horrible - I must do that again." At no point did it get any less horrible, but I actually had to drag myself away.

The whole site is like an exercise in Yin and Yang. The horribleness and the usefulness hugging tightly to each other, with a little bit of the useful within the horrible, and a little bit of the horrible within the useful.

Then again, maybe I'm just desperate for interactive resources that are beyond the "hey, let's introduce you to this crazy language" stage, but not as advanced as everything else I can find.

All I want, people, is for someone to remake French in Action in Estonian and make it a bit more computer friendly. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, I know there's Eesti Keel ja Meel, which is trying to do the French in Action thing with the framing story (right down to the blond chick in the long skirts), but it really doesn't have the same approach to vocabulary. In FiA, they would grab the key vocabulary and phrases and repeat them in multiple contexts with different people (and a mime). EKjM wastes valuable time each "episode" showing you pretty pictures of the countryside when it could be giving you extra vocabulary/grammar lessons. The exercises you can do aren't really as good as multiple and varied exposure to the vocabulary.

That said, I don't mind EKjM. I think the way they are trying to do the FiA framing story is kind of cute. It just feels like they couldn't quite figure out if they wanted to create a language programme or a tourism brochure.

At least that Mudila thing knows what it is. It's not a very good whatever it is, but it's not trying to sell you the "Visit Estonia!" package at the same time. Maybe Estonian preschoolers aren't on the "Visit Estonia!" hit list.

Stylin'

Every now and then, for no real reason, I just like going to work dressed like I'm a character from Neighbours in 1992.

Not a specific character, mind. It's not like I set out to be one of the Blakeney twins, or anything. I just assemble an outfit, take one look in the mirror and think: "Man, I look like I was dressed by whoever was styling the cast of Neighbours in the early 90s".

It's a combination of factors, you see. My pants sit higher than the fashion would dictate (especially when I'm holding them up with braces), and look more and more like they would fit in better in the early 1990s as the colour fades. They're also a bit long and instead of letting the cuffs get ripped from dragging along the ground (as is more the current fashion) I roll them up - also a bit symptomatic of the early 1990s. White sneakers and socks? Barely out of the 1980s. White v-neck T-Shirt? Well, quite frankly that could belong to any given era, but the fact that it isn't a fitted T knocks it back into the last century.

And then, to top it all off: the vest. I think the vest actually comes from the 1990s. I bought it years ago from a "vintage clothing store". It's one of the few things I own that might have been vaguely trendy, once. Most of my other clothes were born dorky.

So, a black vest over a white T-Shirt/blue jeans combo with white socks and sneakers, high cut pants and rolled up pant cuffs (and braces - not that anyone really notices that bit)...

All I need is a pork-pie hat and I could move right into Ramsey Street, circa 1992. Or maybe Degrassi High, although I think I might be a bit too dorky for that.

I see this and think: "Hey, my sense of style is clearly 18 years out of date. How much fun is that?" And then can't be bothered changing. Sadly, I'm somewhat aware that this is probably the sharpest I've looked all week. Plus, no one at work actually notices, which says volumes about the way I usually dress.

Mind you, I still have a hankering to come to work dressed like I'm a background character from Dr Quinn, Medicine Woman one day. I wonder if anyone will notice?

Well, they're bound to notice the skirt, because I can't wear a skirt to work without every second person commenting on the momentous occasion (which is one of the reasons why I rarely wear skirts), but would they notice the rest of the anachronism? That's the question.