andy – Page 28 – linsenbardt.net

June 28, 2013

Review: Man of Steel

I have something of a tenuous relationship with the Superman franchise. That is to say, I like the Richard Donner original and I even liked 2006’s “Superman Returns,” but these aren’t movies I pull out on a regular basis like I do “The Dark Knight” or “Spider-man.”

One thing I always found attractive about the character was the good old-fashioned feel of classic Americana. “Truth, Justice, and The American Way,” and all that. The character of Superman was an outsider, but one that identified with his adoptive planet and sought to defend its people with a strong sense of American-centric values and morals.

That’s not what this movie is about.

“Man of Steel” is a unique interpretation of the franchise, arguably one that it needed. “Batman Begins” was a necessary reboot of the its franchise, grounding the character of Batman in a somewhat more realistic world while avoiding the campiness that had plagued the more recent films. Superman hasn’t really had that problem, but at the same time, “good old-fashioned Americana” doesn’t sell quite the same way it used to.

And thus, we get a reboot of Superman. This time, we get an extended look at what was happening on Krypton at the time of its destruction, when Kal-El was shipped off by his parents to find refuge on Earth. Through a series of flashbacks, we see key moments of Kal-El’s upbringing as Clark Kent. Unlike the previous movies (though this has been explored in other media, especially “Smallville“), it was nice to see the influence of Clark’s fathers on him throughout the film. Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) both hoped for the future of their son, yet each represented different (yet converging) paths.

Henry Cavill’s Superman was also different than earlier films. Brandon Routh essentially copied Christopher Reeve’s version, but Cavill differentiates himself with a bit more emotion and more of a longing for a place in this world. Again, I see the influence of later Superman properties in Cavill’s interpretation, while Routh and Reeve both veered toward the “Americana” vision pre-1980s. Personally, I think Cavill did a pretty great job for his first time in the suit. And dude, that guy is ripped.

Really, the first half of the movie was pretty good. And in some ways, the second half was “good,” too. But the second half is a different movie from the first half. See, in the first half, there was a back story for Superman, how he was born, raised, and eventually put on the suit. The second half involves the utter obliteration of Metropolis as Superman battles General Zod (Michael Shannon), who wants to recreate Krypton on Earth. Seriously, while I was watching that portion of the movie, I kept thinking it was reminiscent of a “Godzilla” flick, with building after building just being knocked over. The effects were great and the action was fun, but there wasn’t much story once we got to that point. Heck, they got Laurence Fishburne to play Perry White and the man was barely in the movie.

It didn’t help that I didn’t care for Shannon’s portrayal of Zod, either. I don’t think I disliked the character, per se. I simply wasn’t in to Shannon’s acting. He just didn’t give me the feeling that he was a cold hardened military badass from another planet. It took me a few minutes, but after the movie was over, I decided Stephen Lang should have played that role, as he was the military-bred bad guy from “Avatar.” I believed that Lang had a mission to complete and that nothing would stop him from doing it. I didn’t get the same feeling out of Shannon. Maybe that was just me…I dunno…

There is also a controversial ending to this movie, centering on the final confrontation between Superman and Zod. Personally, I didn’t mind it, but it definitely put the final nail in the coffin of the “Christopher Reeve-era” Superman portrayal.

Generally, I felt this movie was “middling.” There were definitely some cool parts, some chuckle moments, some great back story that hadn’t been outlined previously (at least in the movies). At the same time, I was still left wanting. Some glimmer of the Superman character that made him popular in the first place.

Just a little more “Truth, Justice and The American Way” would have been great.

June 17, 2013

St. Louis Brewers Heritage Festival

Brooke and I enjoy hitting up the Schlafly Bottleworks Cabin Fever festival each Winter when we can, as it’s a nice opportunity to try out some beers among friends and like-minded individuals. Thankfully, living in St. Louis, there’s a similar festival being held on a nearly monthly basis, so the opportunity arose for me to go to this year’s St. Louis Brewers Heritage Festival in Forest Park.

This particular festival features breweries from the St. Louis area, so it isn’t just Schlafly that makes an appearance. Just about every brewery around here, many of which I’ve visited, shows up with various beers. In some cases, like Perennial, they didn’t bring the beer that I would have suggested, but at least they were represented. Others had multiple styles available that covered the spectrum of their wares effectively.

I wasn’t a big fan of how this festival was organized, however. The Schlafly-run festivals tend to have their beers organized alphabetically, so if you’re looking for a particular style or name of a beer, you can easily find it and try it.

The picture above illustrates the Brewers Heritage Festival’s “organization,” or lack thereof. All the beers were hosted under large tents with long tables, and kegs of beer behind them. Above each server was a sign displaying the maker of the beer, the style of beer, and the name of the beer.

And that was it.

You’ll note that in the image above, each beer was given a number. So, the beers were organized numerically…yet…there was no number listed on any of the signs. So, if you wanted to find Beer #24, you had to go to the tent that had beers #1-46, head toward the middle of the tent, look through the signs (that were not well-lit), and then find it. Alternatively, you could physically count each sign until you found the number you wanted.

So, the lack of organization already left a negative impression on me. Then, the rain began, complete with some lightning off to the West. Though were in a torrential downpour for about 20 min or so, their website said “with over 7,000 sq. feet of tent space, two beer tents and one food tent, the festival continues rain or shine. There will be enough space and cover to protect from the rain.”

They stopped serving beer. There was no explanation as to why.

After about 20-30 min (and some chanting from the drunken crowd, along the lines of “Rain or Shine! Rain or Shine!” and “Four More Beers! Four More Beers!”), they relented and opened up the taps again.

But with more lightning off to the West and North (i.e. not above us), they shut down completely at 9:30 pm (2.5 hrs into a 4 hr event that folks paid $35 for). Again, no announcements that everyone (anyone?) could hear. No description of the policy. Just shut down.

Which left a lot of drunk, pissed off people. And to top it all off, it wasn’t raining anymore. At all.

So yeah, I ended up getting to taste 10 beers that I came across randomly (as it was difficult to find the ones I wanted due to their lack of organization), and otherwise spent the rest of the time under a tent with a mob of angry people until they finally shut the whole thing down. And many of them were audibly composing angry e-mails to the organizers for screwing up the weather policy so terribly.

On the plus side, Jay Nixon signed a bill allowing home brew to be served at festivals, so I was able to taste a few beers made from local home brewers. They were quite good! I didn’t get a chance to try more than two, but it was great to see that support for the local brewing community.

In all, I’d consider attending this festival again, but it may be a few years. We’ll see how they respond to the negative e-mail I’m going to send them.

May 22, 2013

Classic “Trek” vs New “Trek”

Who to choose, who to choose... — Who to choose, who to choose…

Prior to watching Star Trek Into Darkness last week (and loving it…), I checked out a few reviews and noted a common theme:

I couldn’t help feeling let down. Not because J.J. Abrams and his writers have ignored what “Star Trek” fans want. It’s that they’ve pandered to it to such a degree that it feels less like fan appreciation and more like base-covering pragmatism. — Rob Thomas, Capital Times

Jettisoning the franchise’s optimistic, socially aware sci-fi, not to mention character development or a logical plot, Darkness turns out to be any Vulcan’s worst nightmare: Team America: World Police with Tribbles. — Graham Killeen, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Granted, these folks are in the minority, compared with what generally every other critic thinks is a wonderful movie (that, and many of those making this claim aren’t exactly “big name” national critics…). But they get at a question that’s been asked of the recent movies since their inception:

“Is J.J. Abrams‘ ‘Star Trek’ still ‘Star Trek?'”

There are a lot of people complaining on the internet that these last two movies aren’t “Star Trek” enough and miss what made the franchise great: great story-telling, a sense of exploration and wonder, attention to morality and social justice, and a sense of hope for the future. A “Wagon Train To The Stars,” if you will. Their contention is that these last two movies have very little of that, instead focusing on huge action set-pieces, snappy dialog, and a willful ignorance of the things that made “Star Trek” popular in the first place.

To these people, I’d simply like to ask what Star Trek movies they’ve been watching?

By my count, only three of the movies (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: Insurrection) actually dealt with anything akin to social justice or political upheaval. The other seven movies had a clear villain (or “thing,” in the case of Star Trek: The Motion Picture) that the crew of the Enterprise was fighting against. And why is that? Because in order to make a spectacular science fiction movie in the 21st Century that brings in plenty of movie-goers and actually turns a meaningful profit, you have to make it an action movie. The actors they recruited for these last two movies are wonderful and play their parts well, but they aren’t cheap. Paramount would never make their money back on the actors and relatively minor effects needed to make a modern science fiction film if they did a traditional, “classic,” movie where Kirk and Spock are transported back to the 1930s and have to let a woman die so that the United States enters WWII as history dictates.

What these reviewers, and others on the internet, are complaining about is movie “Star Trek” versus television “Star Trek,” and these are two separate things. Even the movies that feature some kind of social commentary (Undiscovered Country and Insurrection) still have more action than they’ve got “classic ‘Trek'” elements. Voyage Home is probably the only movie in the franchise that’s even close to aping the core of the television franchise: the combination of a new life form, environmental justice, and character drama, along with a few small action scenes.

These movies, Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, should be viewed in comparison with the other movies in the franchise, not the television show(s) that spawned their existence. In the appropriate context, these movies are utterly spectacular, and among the best of the 12 films.

When J. J. Abrams starts making a Star Trek television series, then reviewers and The Internet can complain about the lack of Roddenberry-esque social commentary. Unfortunately, the big budget blockbuster requires more “whiz bang” than the traditional Star Trek fan prefers. Thus, that fan must wait for the next series to start, or should go back and watch the 5 series of TV shows over again to get their fix.

May 17, 2013

Biloxi Vacation

Getting our feet wet... — Getting our feet wet…

Brooke wanted to go on a little vacation this year, but wanted to go a bit early in the summer to avoid being far away from home when she’s closer to her due date. She was also thinking this would be a good time to take Meg to “see the ocean” and experience a beach, as we likely won’t be going very far next year with a newborn.

Thus, she looked into a few options and we decided to head down toward Biloxi, MS, a place neither of us had been to before, but close to the ocean (or “gulf,” technically). This was a relatively short trip, as we spent two days driving, and two full days actually at our destination.

We got up last week on Wednesday morning relatively early, leaving just after 6:00 am. We expected a 9+ hr drive, based on Google Maps, most of which would be a straight shot down I-55 towards New Orleans, cutting off on US-49 at Jackson, MS. Unfortunately, Google didn’t understand that US-49 is filled with small towns and stoplights, so our 9+ hr trip became an 11 hr trip…grrrr… Meg stayed entertained for most of the trip, with an assortment of books, stickers, and movies, and thankfully was able to sleep for a few hours that afternoon. In total, the trip down really wasn’t all that bad, despite the traffic lights.

Technically, we stayed in Ocean Springs, which sits northeast of Biloxi. Our hotel was maybe 10-15 min from the nearest public beach, so we checked it out Wednesday night. After a long day in the car, though, we grabbed a bite to eat at a local restaurant and headed back to the hotel to go to sleep (even I was asleep by 9:30…).

Fillin' my bucket... — Fillin’ my bucket…

The next day, we drove to Gulfport, where we boarded a ferry to Ship Island, part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore. After an hour (and a brief dolphin sighting), we crossed the island to the Gulf of Mexico side, where Meg played in the sand for 4 hours. The high was in the low 80s that day and, while it was quite comfortable out on the beach in a swimsuit, it wasn’t quite warm enough to get into the water. Then again, as Meg can’t swim yet, we probably wouldn’t have been out there much, anyway. Still, she had a good time dipping her toes in and letting the waves chase her.

There was also a Civil War-era structure, Fort Massachusetts, to see. It’s amazing that building has survived so many hurricanes. There were displays of pictures showing how buried everything got during Hurricane Katrina, suggesting it was quite an undertaking to restore it yet again. Still, it was an interesting bit of history to see while on the island.

After we were done at the beach, we went back to the hotel for a few hours. Meg fell asleep in the car on the way back, and then fell asleep again on her bed once we got back to the hotel. Once we finally convinced her to get up, we went to a good seafood restaurant in Gulfport and filled up on plenty of fried fish. Pretty sure I ate enough to never eat again.

The next day was rainy, so we didn’t do all that much. We still took some time, between showers, to hit the other portion of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, closer to the bayous. This was your typical national park visitor center-type exhibit, complete with a video describing the history of the area, and some child-friendly activities. The bayous were cool to see, but we didn’t observe much wildlife. We had a good time getting Meg to help us search for alligators, though.

By Saturday, it was time to leave. As we weren’t about to try and take US-49 again, we looked at the alternative route to I-55 by way of I-10…and as that route takes us right by New Orleans, we opted to stop in for breakfast at Café du Monde for beignets, and Central Grocery for muffulettas. I was just in New Orleans for the annual Society of Neuroscience meeting in 2012, but Brooke hadn’t been there since our honeymoon back in 2005 (pre-Katrina). As expected, everything was wonderful!

The rest of the ride home was mostly uneventful, though the amount of time in the car and the constant proximity with her parents had finally worn on Meg. This was a looooooooong 11 hr drive home…but, we survived. 🙂

It was a good trip overall! A nice little excursion for a few days, seeing new places and having new experiences. Though Meg likely won’t remember this particular trip, we can at least point to the seashells in her fish bowl and say “you found those down in Mississippi when you were three.”

May 16, 2013

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

"Tough little ship..." — “Tough little ship…”

I was a pretty big fan of the J.J. Abrams re-boot of the Star Trek franchise in 2009. Aside from the excellent production values, great new cast, and a new take on an aging (some would say “stale”) franchise, the thing I appreciated most was the attention to previous movies/shows while also completely spinning established canon on its head. It created an “alternate timeline,” allowing the writers to change things up without really pissing off longtime fans (for the most part…I mean…they destroyed Vulcan, after all…)

But, in the end, the first movie was still an origin story. Most of the plot was taken up with getting Kirk into Starfleet, getting him onto the Enterprise, and bringing him in contact with all the folks that would ultimately make up his legendary crew. While Eric Bana is a good actor, frankly, he wasn’t given much to do as the villain. This isn’t a new problem among superhero-type movies, where the first movie in the franchise can only have so much time devoted to a proper villain or conflict.

Which leaves the second movie to fill in the gap. The characters have been introduced and developed. The audience knows generally what to expect. Now, they just want a good movie.

And boy, does Star Trek Into Darkness deliver.

I’ll refrain from spoilers, as this is one movie where I see some value in keeping the secret(s). In short, Kirk & Company seek revenge for an attack on a secret Section 31 installation (nice callback to somewhat deep “Star Trek” lore there, guys…) and Starfleet Command by John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. And honestly, that’s all I want to say about the story. Really, I’d like to write more on it, and perhaps I will in a few months, but for now, you’re best served by not reading anything more about it. Heck, I already knew a few of the details before I saw it, but even I didn’t see some of this movie coming.

In the end, they did a wonderful job of incorporating elements of the “alternate timeline” established in the first one with the “core timeline” of the…well…the rest of “Star Trek.” They even did a good job of transferring lines from the previous movies (one specific movie, in particular…) to the characters in this one. Is some of it cheesy? Perhaps. Personally, I got a kick out of it. Hearing an important line delivered by a different character than who originally delivered it is fascinating, and keeps you guessing.

Despite knowing the few details that I did, I was actually “on my toes,” to some degree, regarding the villain. Cumberbatch was obviously a bad guy from the beginning, but there were times we saw him working with Kirk toward a common goal. But damn, once he turns bad, he turns bad in a real way. It’s like the writers chose to let the audience feel for the plight of the villain for awhile, then, once you start to feel like you understand him, he shifts radically in another direction. It’s one of those moments where you have a villain in front of you, but then the real one steps out from the shadows.

The writers also did a good job of “spreading the love” between characters this time. The last movie featured Kirk, Spock and Uhura, primarily, with bit parts for the others. This time, the only character lacking was Checkov, though he still had his moments. I got a bit tired of the “folksy metaphors” Bones kept spouting and felt he could have expanded his role a bit more, but by the end, I was fine with his portrayal. Overall, the cast did really well, and notably, Zachary Quinto was able to inject a remarkable amount of “feeling” into a “non-feeling” Vulcan. They’re doing a great job re-creating those characters and wish they could have a TV series to really do it right (never gonna happen…).

It goes without saying that the effects were spectacular and the action set pieces were wonderful. I’m glad they showed more of the Enterprise this time around, as I really, really like that ship design. I was also impressed by the 3D in this movie. While you don’t need it to enjoy the movie, of course, I’d still recommend it if you have the option.

All in all, it was a fun ride and a movie I’d like to see again (and again). I haven’t quite decided whether I like the 2009 “original” or the 2013 sequel more yet, however. Perhaps I’ll need a second viewing before I really decide. But right now, I’m leaning toward the new one.

May 6, 2013

Review: Iron Man 3

Iron Man isn’t a comic character I followed growing up: I was more of a Spider-man guy. That said, I greatly enjoyed watching Robert Downey, Jr. fall into Tony Stark, arguably the perfect role for Downey’s playboy-esque manner and bravado. The first movie centered on Stark’s survival at the hands of Afghan terrorists, then converting his military-reliant weapons and technology business into a peace-driven venture, helping to wipe away the decades of damage wrought by himself and his father before him. The second outing for the character, Iron Man 2, focused on Stark’s new-found celebrity, as he coped with the fact that the world knows that he’s Iron Man. To be honest, I didn’t care for the second one all that much, but upon a second viewing awhile back, it grew on me a bit.

Enter Iron Man 3, the first post-Avengers movie featuring, well, an Avenger. The first Iron Man movie helped pave the way for Marvel to bring The Avengers to the big screen (and it was awesome…), and now, with the third movie in the franchise, it’s all about Tony Stark coming to grips with the aftermath of the events in last year’s hit.

That is to say, a lot of this movie deals with Stark enduring something akin to PTSD. Like…a lot of this movie.

I don’t mean the movie’s bad, but there’s a lot of comedy to it, a lot of character interactions, a lot of Tony Stark and how he deals with the world around him. But I didn’t think there was all that much Iron Man in it. Sure, he was walking around in the suit (or dragging it behind him…), but even when he was in the suit, he was literally just walking around, chit-chatting, making jokes…not actually being Iron Man. Heck, he nearly didn’t fly until the end of the movie. Most of the action scenes dealt with Tony: not with Iron Man.

The performances by the actors were all superb, as always. The effects were great. I saw it in IMAX 3D, and while I can recommend the “IMAX” part of that, I didn’t think the “3D” was all that necessary. If you want to see it in any normal digital theater, you probably won’t miss much. Still, I can’t say the 3D detracted from my experience at all.

The story wasn’t even bad, necessarily. It kinda returned to the “foreign terrorist” feel from the first movie, along with another baddie from Stark’s past (played by Guy Pierce, who I thought did a decent job…though Ben Kingsley should have had more to do, in my opinion). But there were so many threads going, between the PTSD line, the Pierce line, the Kingsley line, the relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), the Iron Patriot stuff, and others that focusing on fewer threads may have helped solidify the story a bit better.

Seriously, why Iron Patriot? It was barely featured, yet it seems like a big deal was made of it in all the marketing. Why?

So, in the end, I’m glad I saw it, but the first movie still reigns supreme. Perhaps I’ll like this one better on a second run-through, but for now, I’m just considering this one “so-so.”

Good thing Star Trek: Into Darkness comes out next week. 🙂

May 3, 2013

A Big Sister and Her Little Brother

We went in for an ultrasound yesterday (we’re just about 20 weeks along now) and found out that we’re going to be having a little boy this September!

Personally, I was rooting for a boy this time. I’m a bit biased, having come from a family with two siblings, one boy and one girl, so I’m used to the dynamic between a “brother and sister,” as opposed to a “sister and sister and sister” as Brooke has (and based on the text message I received yesterday after delivering the news, Brooke’s Dad seems pretty excited to finally have a little boy to play with!). Brooke’s just happy to be having another baby, though I suspect she’d like to have another girl someday.

In the coming weeks/months, we’ve got to go through Meg’s baby clothes and see what all we’ve got to work with. We were pretty specific in asking for “gender neutral” baby clothes and, for the most part, I think that’s the majority of what we’ve got, at least up through the 3 – 6 mo age range. After that, Nana and Mimi were more than happy to shift Meg’s clothes options over to the “girl” side of the ledger. Still, I think we’ve got enough clothes to get started with, we’ll likely receive more in the form of gifts, and we’ve got plenty of time for Brooke to grab some more stuff “on the cheap” when she’s out for her nearly weekly thrift store excursions.

For the past few weeks, we’d been asking Meg which she would prefer: a little brother or a little sister. I think “little sister” was the answer she gave most often, but “little brother” came up sometimes, too. I think she’s ready to be a “big sister,” but clearly doesn’t know what’s coming. We’ve been struggling these past few nights to get her to stay in her bed once we hit bedtime, as she’s apparently finally figured out that she can get out of her bed, open her door, and leave the room. We keep having to sit at the top of the stairs to make sure she doesn’t try to escape. And despite the fact that she’s gone to sleep 1-2 hrs late these past few nights, she’s still gotten up early (and was playing with puzzles this morning when Brooke walked in).

Granted, we’ve got a few months to figure this out, but our patience is running thin already, and we’re still getting a full night’s sleep…

Ah, parenthood. 🙂

April 24, 2013

“This Is The One Thing That I Know”

Chillin' in the back seat... — Chillin’ in the back seat…

An exchange from last night’s car ride home between Meg and I:

“What do you want to listen to, Meg?”

“I want to hear ‘This is the one thing that I know’!”

“What…uh…seriously?!”

“‘This is the one thing that I know’!”

“You mean, this song?”

“Yes!”

It took me a few seconds for me to understand what Meg was saying, and then translate those words into a song I knew (“Liquid,” by Jars of Clay). It frequently takes me awhile to grasp her requests for songs, but I picked up on this one somewhat quickly. I had to ask Brooke about this later and she said they hadn’t listened to that song recently. To our knowledge, the last time Meg heard it was when we were playing it just prior to the Good Friday service at church, when we last played it. And that was March 29th.

It isn’t the first time something like this has happened. I’m reminded of another song she wanted to sing a month or two ago when we were in Hannibal, “Forever Reign” (though she recited the first few lines as “You are dead, you are dead, you are nothing to me…” For the record, those aren’t the correct lyrics.).

Meg’s pretty good at remembering random things from a long time ago, especially things you didn’t think she was paying attention to. Thankfully, she appears to grasp music better than other details, which hopefully means she will be at least as good as I am at just “picking up” a song and playing it. We’ll just have to make sure she focuses on sight-reading a bit more than I did.

At the same time, if you ask her what she did at school that say, all she’ll tell you is “I don’t know.” Clearly she knows, but for some reason, doesn’t want to tell you. We’re working on this, too.

Still, at times like last night, I have to wonder how her little mind is working…

April 16, 2013

Science Fiction and Science Fact

Brooke picked up “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” in e-format from the library a few weeks ago, and as it’s a book I’d heard of and had some interest in, I joined her in reading it. Overall, it was a fascinating tale of how a black woman named Henrietta Lacks in the American South of the early-1950s died of cervical cancer, but samples of her cancerous cells survived in a dish (now known as HeLa cells), paving the way for not only the modern technique of cell culture, but also the discoveries that would develop the polio vaccine, new cancer treatments, and unlock many secrets of genetics.

While the book covers the science in a comprehensive, yet very readable manner, it also tells the reader of what happened to Henrietta’s family in the aftermath of her death, and the fact that they not only had no knowledge of the fact that Henrietta’s cells were being used in research, but they also received no compensation whatsoever for the discoveries that came from it. When the family eventually discovered what had been happening with HeLa cells over the previous 20 years (seriously…20 years after her death, the family found out…), they didn’t understand what was going on, partially because researchers didn’t take the time to explain it to them, but also because many of them never completed high school, let alone took a single biology class.

This passage jumped out at me:

Deborah realized these movies were fiction, but for her the line between sci-fi and reality had blurred years earlier, when her father got that first call saying Henrietta’s cells were still alive. Deborah knew her mother’s cells had grown like the Blob until there were so many of them they could wrap around the Earth several times. It sounded crazy, but it was true.

“You just never know,” Deborah said, fishing two more articles from the pile and handing them to me. One was called HUMAN, PLANT CELLS FUSED: WALKING CARROTS NEXT? The other was MAN-ANIMAL CELLS BRED IN LAB. Both were about her mother’s cells, and neither was science fiction.

“I don’t know what they did,” Deborah said, “but it all sound like ‘Jurassic Park’ to me.”

This conversation took place in the early-2000s, though Deborah, Henrietta’s youngest daughter, had been reading articles like the ones mentioned for decades, especially in the early years before the media and society really could grasp the power and utility of cell culture. Sure, researchers were making “hybrids,” but what exactly did that mean? The articles were sensationalistic, rarely providing enough background information to explain the meaning behind what researchers were doing (i.e. not making “man-animals”…).

But a lot of it goes back to the lack of education. The Lacks family simply could not understand what was happening with Henrietta’s cells because they barely had a concept of what a ‘cell’ was, let along the technologies and diseases HeLa cells could (or did) help cure. Heck, I remember trying to explain my graduate work to my 90+ year old grandmother (who possibly never took a biology class, and even if she did, it was in the early-1930s…), and that was extremely difficult. It’s not that she wasn’t intelligent: she just didn’t have the background knowledge to understand much of what I was telling her.

As scientists, I think many of us expect that society, as a whole, has a basic understanding of how the world around them functions, but I have to wonder if society understands less than we think. We expect that people over the age of 50 have taken a biology class before, but forget that biology has come a long way since they took those classes in the 1970s (when cell culture was still in its infancy). We further don’t recognize that many of our aging population (i.e. people older than 60) haven’t had a biology class since the 1960s or earlier, if they took a ‘biology class’ at all. And these are the people that we’re marketing countless drugs to during the commercial breaks from the evening news.

We need to get better at recognizing that “science” moves faster than society’s understanding of it. Perhaps this is why researchers have a tough time getting the concepts of “global climate change,” “evolution” and “childhood vaccination” across to certain segments of the population. If they had the scientific background (or the will to learn more on the subject from primary literature, rather than silly blogs like this one), perhaps our society could move forward on many fronts, whether environmental, sociological or spiritual.

Though it’s important for scientists to communicate more effectively, it’s also incumbent upon society to start listening. Otherwise, we are all doomed to repeat the failures presented in the book. It’s definitely worth a read.

April 2, 2013

Tech Update: Samsung Chromebook (2012)

So, I mentioned that Meg has something of a “fondness” for our Kindle Fire HD 8.9, mostly just for watching TV shows. As a result, my tablet has been somewhat co-opted in favor of my toddler on most weekends, when I’d like to sit on the couch and catch up on my online reading from the previous few days. Compound this with the fact that tablets don’t have keyboards, so when traveling, I don’t generally have anything I can type a lengthy e-mail with (unless I borrow a nearby computer, which is sometimes a viable option).

Now, I gave up laptops after my last one failed, mostly because I don’t really need one anymore (especially for gaming), and because they are made obsolete within a few short months, despite spending $1000 on a reasonably decent one that should comfortably last you a few years. We’ve still got Brooke’s Dell Mini 10 netbook, but as it was somewhat underpowered the day we bought it nearly 4 years ago, it wasn’t my first choice of solutions.

Enter the Google Chromebook. These are cheap, netbook-type laptops that don’t run Windows, but instead run a modified version of Gentoo Linux called “Chrome OS.” Essentially, it’s an operating system that functions almost exclusively in a web browser. Actually, the first iterations of the operating system were literally just the Google Chrome browser and nothing else: no file manager, no storage on the hard drive, no nothing.

The strategy behind Chrome OS and Chromebooks at large are to provide a low-cost solution to consumers to drive people closer and closer to “living in the cloud,” where they do their typing in Google Docs, they store their photos on Google+, they send their e-mail with Gmail, they use the Chrome browser, they play games in that browser, and they use Google Music to store and play their MP3s.

It’s the idea where just about everything they do is inside a web browser, and for many people, that’s just fine. A lot of people buy a nice laptop and only use it to check Facebook and Pinterest, never needing to install heavy photo editing software, play graphics-intensive games, or run AutoCAD. They may have the occasional document to write, but don’t need macros or anything more complicated than double-spacing and bold text.

And for these people, a Chromebook is just fine. Best of all, as it’s a browser-running-on-Linux, it’s virtually virus immune and all updates come down automatically in the background. As it runs Chrome, if you take advantage of its Cloud Sync functionality, everything gets synced between computers and browsers, so if you lose or break your Chromebook, you just log in to a new one and it’s set up identically to your old one.

The Samsung Chromebook that I picked up a few weeks ago has a 11.6″ screen, a full-size keyboard, a few USB ports, an SD card port, and HDMI out (if you wanted to have an external monitor or send it to your television). The difference is that it runs an ARM-based processor (as opposed to an Intel or AMD processor like your PC or Mac has), which is similar to the processors running your cell phones. This particular Chromebook has a 16 GB SSD, as well. The combination of the SSD and ARM chip means there are zero fans in the device, allowing it to be crazy thin, crazy quiet, and crazy efficient (about 6.5 hrs of battery life).

And the price for this thing? $250. To be fair, I got it cheaper than that, but I think it’s worth the $250 asking price.

The big key is to think about what you need/want a laptop for. This thing doesn’t run Windows, so if you want to use Microsoft Word, you’re out of luck. If you want to install Adobe Photoshop, you’re out of luck. If you want to install Steam and a copy of Age of Empires II, you’re out of luck. But, if you live mostly in a browser for most things you do and you’re already tightly integrated with Google services (i.e. you use Android smartphones, like we do), then it makes perfect sense and serves as a great laptop. I’m pretty happy with it thus far, and have had a good time finding alternatives to programs I use routinely that function within a web browser. For example, Pixlr is a photo editing tool based on The Gimp that has many of the same functions of Photoshop. Let that sink in: a Photoshop-capable alternative running in a web browser. Nuts.

So, overall, I’m a big fan so far. It isn’t perfect, but for the most part, it does all that I need it to and then some. It’s well worth it if you don’t need anything “over-capable” and you do most things in a web browser.