Check out this awesome comic here. It’s full of hilarious analogies such as this one:
Finding out Mars had life on the day we found out it was better than us was painful. Like meeting a long lost brother by walking in on him doing a commendable job screwing your wife.
If you follow this blog you’re no stranger to these futuristic ramblings about how the human race will use their technology to become (somewhat) immortal. But this particular view, in which the afterlife is depicted as some sort of a privatized service, is simply brilliant and shows exactly how the future can be so scary in terms of copyright content.
As the authors say: “the Singularity, ruined by lawyers”
see here via Artur Ventura
View of Sintra’s palace from my home using my telescope and the iPhone.
 |
Isaac Asimov – NightfallMy Review: The premise behind this plot is as simple as it is brilliant: a society living in a planet that is surrounded by several suns doesn’t know darkness, until a rare orbital effect causes a total eclipse every 2000 years. It is with this simple plot line that Asimov presents a brilliant story about a society that has to face its biggest fear, which, in fact, serves as a metaphor for any kind of catastrophic event that can launch a society into a primitive state and, therefore, is a great way of making the reader think about their own reality. However, I can’t help but feel that Asimov was a bit lazy about this novel. He does make a point about that in the foreword in which he states that the novel is based on a short story he had previously wrote and that he has made certain choices regarding the characterization of the people in that planet that were meant to simplify the reading process. But what he did was simply think of Earth, add a few suns to it and then describe what would happen if Earth’s population had to face darkness. But a society that never faced darkness would be completely different than our society. There simply wouldn’t be the concept of day as we know it, hence, there wouldn’t be a circadian rhythm. I just think it could have been developed into a full-blown sci-fi novel (probably his best) if only he had extended the idea a bit further. Also, the ending (which, obviously, I won’t discuss here) felt a bit rushed… as if the inspiration ran out or a deadline with the publisher was approaching. My Rating: 4/5 |
 |
Suzanne Collins – Catching Fire (The Hunger Games #2)My Review: In my opinion, this is the best of the 3 books. It still suffers from the same problem as in the first book where some of the twists can be easily predicted but less so. But in any case I like the main idea of the plot (which I can’t reveal as it would be somehow a spoiler) and I think it’s quite well written. I also like the way it ends and how it leaves the reader eager to read the next book. My Rating: 4/5 |
 |
Suzanne Collins – Mockingjay (The Hunger Games #3)My Review: Sadly, the last book of the Hunger Games trilogy is also, in my opinion, the worst. I don’t know if the intention of the author was to use the book as a personal manifesto against war (by implicitly stating that no one actually wins in a war and most of the times, nothing changes afterwards, in which case I think the book is actually perfect to convey that message) but the story is too depressing and completely different from the other two, in which hope was the main message. Perhaps that is a good thing, it just wasn’t what I was expecting. And I’m not sure that it’ll work as a movie to end a trilogy. Maybe they’ll change the plot a bit to conform more to the other two. My Rating: 3/5 |
 |
William Gibson – NeuromancerMy Review: This book was part of my quest to fill in my gaps in sci-fi classics. It is a well known and critically-aclaimed book that defined a new genre in science-fiction about a futuristic society where people have brain-computer interfaces to access a global network system called the Matrix (that rings a bell, doesn’t it?). The story is mind-blowing (yay for artificial intelligence) but a bit confusing and far-fetched at some points, but overall I totally understand why it is considered a classic. To have had the opportunity to read this in 1984 would have simply been a life-changing event. At the age of 33 in 2012 not so much so. My Rating: 4/5 |
 |
Isaac Asimov – Foundation #1My Review: I love Asimov’s writing style and this book isn’t any different. He simply lays the plot’s premise at the beginning and then the reader just follows the story while mixing it with its own thoughts about that premise. That’s what I love about sci-fi, it’s the way it makes you think about those things you’ve never thought about before. In this case, it’s all about the use of knowledge and the power that comes with it, including predicting future events by making use of Psychohistory, a science that can predict the future but only in the large scale of a society, not at the individual scale. However, the book didn’t feel exciting enough to me, which perhaps makes sense because it was not meant to be read as a single book, it is part of a larger story. When I get the time, I’ll read the entire Foundation series. My Rating: 4/5 |
Related: What I’ve been reading, Vol. I, II, III, IV and V
This is not the kind of film that would win an Oscar. Nor the kind of story that is completely new. In fact, you can see what will happen next a mile away. But that’s exactly what’s so powerful about this film. It tells a story that, sadly, is more common than it should. There are no surprises in the plot, but with each new scene you feel more compelled to keep going in the hope that something will be different, that somehow this will tell that same story but with a different, less painful ending. But it won’t. And you will feel as powerless as the parents in the movie.
If you’re a parent, this movie is mandatory. If not, well, see it anyway. Fully recommended.
If there’s something I despise is people that use the little power that they have to make everyone else’s life more difficult.
Today I received this joke on my e-mail and I simply have to share it:
Every time that a person goes to a doctor’s appointment, the doctor’s assistant always asks for the reason he or she is there in front of everyone else in the waiting room. And the patient has to politely answer even if the situation is slightly embarrassing.
One of those times, when the doctor’s assistant asked me what was the reason for my visit, I stated: “Well, I have a problem with my penis.”
This obviously caused a bit of an altercation in the waiting room and the assistant replied: “Sir, you shouldn’t say those things out loud in the waiting room.”
Me: “Why not? You asked me the reason why I was here!”
Assistant: “You could try to be a bit more discrete. For example, you could say that you have a problem with your ear and then later discuss the real reason with the doctor.”
So I smiled, got out and went back in: ”Good morning!”
Assistant: “Yesss??”
Me: “I have a problem with my ear.”
The assistant smiled, nodded and then asked: “And what seems to be the problem with your… ear?”
Me: “It hurts when I pee.”
Apparently an extension to the Portuguese law that prohibits smoking in enclosed public spaces is being discussed so as to include the situation in which parents smoke inside their cars while transporting their children. I agree with the situation the law intends to include but not necessarily with the fact it should be a law, as in, “you’ll get fined or go to jail if you don’t comply”.
Up in smoke, by Pedro Moura Pinheiro
People might misinterpret my words so, let me clarify: I fully agree children should not be exposed to their parents’ smoking environment. And I get it that a law is probably the only way to enforce the protection of children whose parents are irresponsible enough to include their children in their smoking environment.
Now imagine that, in the future, the government prohibits parents from taking their children to McDonald’s or any other junk food restaurant because too much of that kind of food can turn your kids into adults with high risk of developing cardiovascular diseases. The argument is still the same: the law exists because there are irresponsible parents that do not protect their children from harmful activities (even if that harm only reveals itself in the distant future). Would your position still be the same as in the smoking law? Or would you find that to be a huge invasion of your freedom?
You’d probably say: “Ah but that’s different!” Well, is it? From a health point of view, the situations are exactly the same. You might think I’m being extreme but actually, junk food might be worse since a lot more people die of cardiovascular diseases than people die of smoke-related diseases. However, a lot more people would oppose to this no-junk-food-for-small-children law than the no-smoking-near-children law. Why is that?
What worries me the most is the precedence that this kind of law opens. Would you like to live in a future in which you’d need to show your most recent cholesterol exams just to prove that you are allowed to eat a Big Mac? Yeah, me neither.
I think people should have the freedom to be idiots.
Almost a year ago, I attended a lecture by Professor Jonathan Taplin at my University about the power of social networks in media and politics. The lecture was quite interesting but the really interesting part was a small story he told regarding the information we make public on social networks and how it can be used “against” us.
In the story, a friend of his (an executive in a well-known technology company) was approached by two developers that were looking for funding to create an app. This was their pitch to the executive: ”Imagine you’re in a bar and you see a girl that you fancy. You (sneakily) take a picture of her. Then, the app, using facial recognition and public information from social networks, will quickly create a simplified profile of the girl, which will then help you make a smooth approach.”
You can easily see how creepy this is: “Hi Jenna! Don’t remember me? We both had Mr. Roberts as our History teacher! How’s your little brother Steve? Oh, and do you still have that small cat?“. But the interesting part is that this will only go as far as your public information will allow it. The more you put out there, the more it can be used against you.
In the story, Taplin’s friend found the idea outrageous and refused to even consider funding their idea. But you know other potential investors won’t have the same approach and will see that this kind of app can be lucrative. Some creepy apps are even starting to pop up. And this is only the beginning.
This video is part of a visually-stunning series of videos based on Carl Sagan‘s texts on the humankind and space exploration. Do yourself a favor and watch these videos. They are surprisingly relaxing and awe-inspiring.