It seems a bit odd to me that the country would have started discussing changes to the Canadian national anthem only after we just were host to the world for the winter Olympics, singing it for all to hear.  However, the fact that the issue seems to have died in parliament due to disapproval from much of the country makes the timing rather irrelevant now.  Even though the topic may seem to have “died,” I’d still like to spend a bit of time on it.

The idea of changing the lyrics to more gender equal ones actually started well before the recent Olympics – by many decades.  A woman named Nancy Ruth (formerly Nancy Jackman) has been leading the fight for many years now.  The line in particular that she would like to see changed is “In all thy sons command” to something along the lines of “Thou dost in us command.”  Not exactly a major remodeling of the lyrics.  In my opinion, her suggestion actually makes the English clearer.

Some of the negative response she has received, some of which has been rather hateful from the sounds of it,  is from people who don’t like the idea of change to the anthem because it has become part of the history of the country.  I think the argument is a bit silly.  First off, compared to many countries in the world, Canada is rather young so our history is only just beginning.  Even compared to the age of our country, the national anthem is even younger.  What we know of now as the lyrics only date back a few decades to the 1980s, much younger than many Canadians themselves.  I hardly see small changes to the anthem now as being a major upset to its “history.”

Well, despite anything we say here and now, the issue is dead to parliament for the moment.  Who knows, Nancy or a successor of hers may eventually win their fight for gender equality in the lyrics, but at the end of the day the amount of such changes will necessarily be limited by public opinion.

I recently filled out a survey for a student conducting research.  The form wasn’t subtle at all to the topic – unmanned commercial planes.  It asked the standard questions to stick me in an age, gender, and education category.  It also checked how often I fly, how much I knew about flying itself, and of course how aware I was of previous unmanned aircrafts.  Despite an intellectual realization that with the right testing, this could very well be possible, I still had to admit in the survey that I would not feel comfortable unless there was an actual human pilot present in the cockpit.

Despite what you may think, the earliest unmanned aircrafts were built almost a hundred years ago.  They probably don’t resemble the image that you have in your mind, and they are nothing like what would be required for commercial passenger flights, but it is important to realize that the ideas and engineering of such devices have been worked upon for quite a long time now.  If you think that any remote-controlled flying toy embodies the basics of these, then it becomes more obvious to see that they are relatively old ideas.

What gets me, and I’m sure I’m not alone here, is the idea that electronics can fail; devices break or malfunction.  They are certainly susceptible to many different types of attacks, include computer viruses.  Despite what we may think of ourselves or our fellow human beings, the human body is actually quite an achievement in terms of design and functionality.  What could bring down an electronic piloting system may be easily withstood by a human pilot.  So, based on perhaps an irrational fear of an electronic system failing, I still feel the need for a “backup” pilot.

Requiring a human pilot of course begs the question why bother with a computer pilot in the first place if you’re going to require a human one to be there anyway?

The 82^nd Academy Awards aired last night… and maybe you saw it?  If you didn’t, let me not keep you in suspense and give some of the highlights:

Best Picture – The Hurt Locker

Best Director – Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)

Best Actor – Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)

Best Actress – Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)

Best Animated Feature – Up

Apparently viewership has been a major issue for the awards ceremony in recent years and much effort was dedicated this year to try woo the audience back.  The show was made a bit shorter, they increased the number of nominees, and even looked at changing the voting system.

I’ve never really been a fan of awards ceremonies, especially when they become as hyped up as the Academy Awards.  That said, if you are going to make a serious effort to pick out the best and acknowledge them, I’d hope that keeping true to their goal is the primary concern.  However, when I hear of them making changes to increase viewership, I start to doubt that.

I know one of the big issues is that more “artsy” movies tend to be awarded rather than the blockbusters that the public choose at the box office, which alienates some of the potential viewership.  There will always be a difference between the taste of the critics and the public.  Considering that Avatar did not win as many awards as one might expect might be a sign that they are remaining true to their intention.  However, I almost feel that they pushed for more commercially successful movies to be included in the nominees in the first place, which would definitely just be a change to cater to the masses.  Either way, they’ve now doubled the number of movies that can boast “Academy Award nominee” in their advertising if nothing else.

As for the rest of the changes to the presentation and format, cutting back on the pomp and show a bit is certainly fine with me.  Either way the award is still given out and the public becomes aware.  To put it in perspective, when was the last time most of the public tuned into the Nobel Prize awards ceremonies?

So much for my rants on what people do on the internet because of a feeling of anonymity – apparently all it takes is a bit of dim lighting or some sunglasses:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7354536/Darkness-encourages-lying-and-crime.html

Before I go further, it’s rather interesting to note that I found the news story on a UK source, but it is referencing a University of Toronto study.  Score one for the global nature of the internet, and I guess I’m bringing the story “full circle” to Canada.

Back to the actual story itself.  The study involved a bunch of tasks with money, and the honesty of the participants is tested as they are left to complete tasks, mark themselves, and reward themselves with real money.  Those completing the tasks in dim lighting or with sunglasses on tended to be less honest, prompting the conclusions above.

The big question with research like this is always how does it translate to the real world?  Cheating for a few dollars on a “meaningless” test that they had to complete may not reflect day to day living.  Then again, if they’re willing to cheat for just a couple of dollars on these meaningless tests, maybe it does give a rather good measure of what lies deep in their hearts and what they may try to deny even to themselves.  I’ll leave it for the peer reviewers of the journals to debate that one out.

There might also be a bit of “chicken or egg” question associated with this type of behaviour.  Negative behaviour (e.g., crime) is often associated with the dark.  Perhaps we tend to this behaviour in the dark because we have been conditioned this way.  Then again, this may be a bit of a stretch.

What I do think I can say is that studies like this show that the connection between anonymity and bad behaviour isn’t a product of the internet, but rather the internet just gives us anonymity to then tend to bad behaviour.  Sorry, I don’t have actual data to present to support this last statement!

I’ve seen it a few times while flying: people with their pets on their laps.  I’m sorry to all the pet lovers out there but I think that allowing this is a horrible idea.  The Canadian transport authority might agree with me on this as they examine Canadian airline policies regarding pets.

First off, animals smell.  You may like the smell of your pet.  I don’t.  Planes are small with recirculating air.  If your pet stinks (and hey, even if just you stink), a lot of other people have to suffer with it too.  If your pet gets over exciting or can’t hold it in, that would really stink and might land up on other people too.  Nasty.

Pets can also get restless and noisy.  Luckily I haven’t experienced this one myself on a flight, but let’s face it, most animals won’t sit still and calmly for the duration of a longer flight.  I know many pet owners use sedative medicines to ensure this, but such measures are by no means mandatory.

Most importantly, many people have allergies to animals.  Forcing them to sit near a pet can be like placing a cloth over their face and forcing them to breathe through it.  The resulting suffocation can hardly be fair or pleasant to the person.  I don’t know how anyone could consider the rights of pet owners to have their pets with them to be above the rights of a person to breathe!  I’m pretty sure it is this basic violation of rights that the Canadian transport authority is examining.

All I can say is that if a person sits down next to me in a plane with a smelly squirming pet in their lap, I’d make one hell of a complaint to the airline and expect to be reseated immediately.  I don’t pay for first class, but I do expect a certain level of pet-free comfort even in economy.

The latest politician to embarrass herself is Helena Guergis, Status of Woman Minister of the State in the Conservative government.  What did she do?  Showed up for her Charlottetown to Montreal flight last minute and threw a tantrum as she went through security etc.  This included swearing, calling Charlottetown a “hellhole” and yelling at flight staff as they told her what they would have told any customer.  I see just a “few” problems with this.

Problem #1 – and let’s start with the more minor one – is that she was actually allowed on the plane and flew to Montreal.  Many people, including people in the aviation security business, are speculating that it was only her VIP status that enabled this.  Any normal passenger would have not been allowed on the flight.  Differential treatment between government officials and the public never sits well with people.  They’re supposed to be representing us, not abusing their power.

Problem #2 is obviously the way she behaved in public.  Nobody should be behaving like she did, and the blatant abuse of the airport officials or of any other citizen of Canada especially by a government official should not be tolerated.  Someone who can’t keep her temper in check and behave in public is not someone who should be in politics.

Problem #3 is that her role is for the status of woman so she is therefore representing woman to the public.  I think every Canadian woman would agree that this is not the image of a woman that they want to be displayed to the public.  Guergis’s actions are singlehandedly helping to unravel the equality that woman have worked so hard for in the past.

A number of people have been calling for her resignation (or that she be fired), and I’m one of them.  I certainly don’t want someone like this in government representing me and abusing power.

We’re living in more and more of a digital world where we have become more and more detached from our physical finances.  I’ve heard figures thrown about saying that 90% of the world’s money exists only on “paper” in the form of bank statements and only the remaining 10% exists as physical money.  I think a basic question to ask is if this is a bad thing.

Arguments for cash include the psychological effect of feeling like you actually have and are using money.  I’ve heard that many people get themselves into serious debt using credit cards because they don’t feel as if they are actually spending money and then lose track of what they will owe.  Having hard cash and handing it over lets the reality set in and keeps them more financially responsible.  There is also the idea that if your money only exists digitally, then you run the risk of it disappearing with a simple computer error or stroke of key.

On the other side of the fence is the world of credit and digital money.  I think many would argue that a digital balance is safer than your life’s savings hidden under your mattress.  You also tend to go through an extra “barrier” between you and your merchant, especially when dealing with credit cards.  A recent news article explains of a couple from Halifax who lost their vacation money because the company through which they had booked and paid went out of business:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1169536.html

The couple technically didn’t pay in cash but rather in cheque, which is almost the same these days.  However, had they paid via credit card they would be able to get a refund through the credit card company.

With Canadian credit card companies favouring customers over vendors and adding the extra level of security, I find it hard not to lean towards credit over cash.  Then again, I’ve never had a problem of overspending with a credit card either.

Before I begin, let me just take a moment to focus on the tragedy and horrors that must have been visited on patients who have to deal with serious medical mistakes.  They literally have to live with the day-to-day consequences, some of which can leave them disfigured, partially paralyzed, and even incomplete.  Because it is my nature, there may be sarcasm and humour implied in my post, but none of it is intended to be aimed at the victims.

With that said, let me get to the point:  physicians at a Windsor hospital have been put under the microscope because of recent accidents.  One surgeon in particular has been involved in two unnecessary mastectomies (removal of a breast).  While these procedures can be life saving for patients who have cancer, in these incidences no such live threatening disease was actually present.  One mistake, while tragic, could perhaps be understood in an otherwise extemporary career, but two starts to look like plain carelessness.  (Yes, I’m stealing a line from Oscar Wilde.)

The “problems” seem to focus on pathology reports that were either not read properly by the surgeon or not properly given/presented to her.  As a result, the pathologist is now also under inspection.  These mistakes have obviously caused a commotion in the media (and probably much happiness that they have such a story to report on), and new hospital protocols are being proposed to try and avoid them in future.

I’m not against new protocols to avoid mistakes, but I still am left wondering why these mistakes here and now.  More specifically, if these protocols are really needed, why haven’t we seen more cases of a similar nature in other places with other physicians?  There may be more cases that are just hidden by a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  Then again, it may just be problems isolated to these physicians and this attention may just be adding to the bureaucracy of the healthcare process.  I wish I knew for sure.

We all started off life thinking things were either black or white.  We learn of good and evil, and right and wrong.  Then gray starts to seep into our lives.  We found out that everyone can want to be good, but end up doing bad.  More than that, we also learn that following the letter of the law and what we have been told is “right” doesn’t necessarily do the most good, and can even do harm.

The extreme example I like to think about is that of the code breakers during World War II.  They were able to understand the coded German messages but were left with the dilemma: do they use this knowledge to save people and risk the Germans realizing their code had been broken?  Obviously not saving the people is “wrong” but could still serve the greater good in winning the war.

Okay, returning back to reality from the high horse, let me get into a more mundane but also more relevant application:  pirating and misuse of the internet in general.  Copyright holders are obviously sending out lawsuits in a hope of curbing privacy.  Internet service providers (ISPs) are being dragged into this fight as well.  They also have a fight of their own against users who do other illegal activity, or misuse the connection affecting all others that use the network.

What is right dictates that anyone can accuse or defend and that everyone should get their day in court.  The big problem with this is cost.  It can bankrupt an individual and introduce a whole new stream of expenses to a business.  Sometimes businesses or even individuals get away with things because of the associated cost to stop them, rather than being right.

I think copyright owners should earn money giving incentive to continue to produce works.  I don’t think that they should be allowed to sue random people as “warnings” and then bullying their victims into paying to make it go away.  I like the freedom to use my internet connection as I wish without restriction.  However, I don’t think that people blatantly abusing their connection should be allowed to waste money and company resources “appealing” the decision.

I’m sure not all of what I want is “right” or even “good” (and I’m sure it’s not consistent), but I hope it all falls just within a nice side of gray.

UK movie theaters have been boycotting Disney’s new Alice in Wonderland  movie because Disney is trying to shorten to time between its initial theatrical and home releases.  The industry standard is to wait 17 weeks, but Disney wants 12 to enable them to maximize their profits from the film.  They’ve now relented to 13 weeks, enable them to win back the Cineworld who will be showing the movie in their theaters.  I’m probably not the only the one wondering what the fuss is about?  Let me spend a few words trying to figure it out.

Like all things, I’m pretty sure this has to be about money.  All these things have to be about money.  Disney is upsetting the theaters by trying to release their DVDs/Blu-Rays/etc. earlier.  So the theaters must be losing money if they do this early release.  It makes a bit of sense; if people can buy their own copy to watch at home as many times as they wish, many would not bother to pay to watch it only once in the big screen.  Let’s not forget the extra content you’d get on the home releases as incentives to invest your money there.

It’s not all black and white though.  A big Disney movie like this is likely to be a cash cow.  We’re more likely talking about a difference in the amount of money they’ll be making in the theaters rather than if they’ll be making money.  So, boycotting might be a financially stupid decision on their end.  More than that, if they damage their relationship with Disney, they may lose more than the potential profit from this movie alone.  Considering Disney is negotiating in an attempt to woo back the theaters, this situation probably isn’t that dire.

At the end of the day, I think the theaters are deciding between standing their moral ground or bowing before Disney in favour of profits.  Cineworld has decided to bow.

You may have paid for your plane ticket, made it through security, and even started to board, but be careful that you showered.  Smelling bad is enough to get you kicked off a flight.  Being too fat can also get you bumped from your flight.  And I bet you were just worried about weapons, liquids, or even “inappropriate” clothing preventing you from flying the friendly skies.  It’s a harsh world out there.

These “crimes” didn’t happen at the same time. 

Kevin Smith, famous for his Silent Bob movie roles, was bumped from a Southwest Airlines flight because of his weight.  Following airline policy, he had purchased two seats to accommodate his large size, but problems arose while getting on a flight with only a single free seat available.  The airline used the excuse of safety regulations when forcing him off.

More recently, a passenger was forced off an Air Canada flight between Prince Edward Island and Montreal because of his foul odour.  Safety was again cited as the reason for the airline’s actions, but it was complaints from fellow passengers than initiated the situation.  Unfortunately the details that are currently available about the incident are very vague, and the severity and source of the odour is still unclear to me.

In both cases, the passengers weren’t barred from travelling and were eventually put on different flights.  The foul smelling one flew out the following morning, likely after taking care of his hygiene problems.  However, I can’t help but think that the airlines are walking a very tight rope and risk crossing the line into human rights abuse.

I feel that we are only a lawsuit or two away from radical changes to airline policies or even the laws governing the means of travel.  Safety is always important, especially when being trapped in a steel can high in the sky, but using it a thin veil to cover human rights violations will only lead to trouble.

Am I the only one who is a little embarrassed by the way Canada has handled the Olympic hosting?  Bad weather, unfortunate death of an athlete, and some other small things are out of our control, but many things are not. 

The “Own the Podium” attitude is 100% our fault.  I really wonder how this idea could have passed the scrutiny of what must have been many people at many committee meetings, and even then, why didn’t someone with a bit of common sense didn’t just tap an organizer on the shoulder to give them a reality cheque?  National pride and wanting to shine bright when hosting are perfectly normal, but this slogan and attitude really feels like we’re lifting our middle finger to the rest of the world rather than inviting them to a friendly competition.  The statement is clear:  we’re here to win and not make friends.  Not exactly the heart of the Olympic spirit.

And this isn’t even the worst of it.  A bad slogan is one thing, but apparently we even stooped to cheating a bit by abusing the home team advantage.  I’m referring to giving preferential treatment to Canadian athletes when it comes to the Olympic courses and venues for training.  While this isn’t cheating per se, actively blocking athletes from other countries from familiarizing themselves with the courses certainly skews things in our favour a bit.  Do we really want to win because of unfair advantages rather than actual athletic ability?

I know that I seem to only be harping on the negative of the Olympics.  I’ve pointed out the flaws, the bad luck, and problems surrounding our hosting of the Winter 2010 Olympics.  I’ve tried to look at the good too.  Really, I’ve tried.  But when something as blatantly as wrong as this comes forward, I can’t help but again spend a bit of time throwing in my two cents, even when it’s so negative.

A recent story has come to light that highlights some of the dangers of genetic testing.  The parents of a newborn baby in Florida were warned that their baby had a gene putting her at risk for cystic fibrosis.  The problem was that the parents had never asked for any testing to be done.  The State had done it without permission and as standard procedure.

The first problem with this is that the choice as to whether to be tested for certain genes is very personal.  In some cases, knowing about it can help treat and even prevent a disease.  However, in many others there is absolutely nothing medicine can do for you, so knowing about the disease can actually have a negative effect if it leaves the person in constant fear of the onset.  In these cases, the decision to be tested is very personal and really should not be taken away from a person.

The second problem it highlights is one of privacy.  If the government is taking DNA samples and testing them, it can only be assumed that they are keeping and tracking this information.  While we don’t yet have the ability to know everything about a person from their DNA, we can still learn a lot, including whether they have genes that put them at risk for certain diseases, and can also later be used to identify the person.  In the not-so-distant future, there is also the possibility of cloning the person.  All of this leaves a very nasty taste of “big brother” and all the extreme possibilities of loss of freedom with it.

Right now we are still in a situation where our technology is ahead of the laws.  I would not be surprised to see court cases in the near future that more clearly define when it is okay to perform genetic testing, and even when and what genetic samples may be taken and stored.

I recently was witness to a very personal and very mean attack on a friend conducted from an anonymous Gmail account.  Free services like Google make it very easy to anonymously send messages.  No personal information is required.  No real proper verification is needed as to the purpose and use of the account.  And obviously no payments are needed either.  The account can be used the once and then thrown away.

Okay, technically it is possible to track down the person who sent the message.  Accessing the account left behind a trail of IP addresses and given the right access and information, this would be tracked down to an internet account and physical address.  But let’s face it, you need a lot of money and help from the law (i.e., a warrant or equivalent) to gain access to this information.  Unless you plan to use the account to break the law – and something serious enough for them to make an effort to find you – we can still call this anonymous.

What I think is most relevant to ask is whether easy access to these anonymous services would increase attacks such as the one I witnessed.  A veil of anonymity always makes actions, especially wrong ones, easier.  But simply writing a note left in the right place could achieve the same.  With e-mail though, the same message can be sent to a lot of people.  Leaving the note in a public place or writing it very large across a wall or billboard would also achieve the same.  Then again, that would take a lot more effort and you would be much more likely to be caught in the process.

I certainly don’t know the truth as to whether our anonymous internet services encourage these attacks, but my gut says yes.  The internet makes it a lot easier, a lot less risky, and a lot more convenient.  This is not to say that Google and other services should start limiting access or gathering more information for verification.

Toyota has enjoyed a lot of world-wide success and much of it has to do with the care and effort they put into building up their brand name.  Their cars have a reputation for being gas efficient and reliable while still remaining affordable.  However, the company’s reputation has taken some damage recently due to faulty gas pedals.

The first problem was a more general one, affecting their cars by causing the pedal to stick to the floor mat in some cases.  This would result in the car continuing to accelerate unintentionally and led to some accidents.  The problem is a bit more subtle than my description would make it seem, and so the number of accidents and problems were limited and would explain how the problem was not noticed before the cars made it into the public.  Nevertheless, Toyota had to issue a widespread recall on their cars to fix the problem, and the plant where the faulty parts came from has been put under inspection.

A more recent problem has occurred specifically with their hybrid Prius model.  It again involves acceleration problems, but this time it is an issue with the cars braking system. The problem is actually more of a software one dealing with how the car handles its dual system that switches between traditional brakes and the type it uses to recharge the car’s battery.  Toyota has once again had to issue a recall to deal with the problem.

What is interesting out of this is that despite the company’s recent problems, consumers still seem to have faith in them.  Much of it must be due to the companies past success that has built up customer loyalty.  However, part it is also likely due to the way the company has handled itself during the problems.  They’ve acknowledged them and issued recalls to deal with them.  More than that, the company has shown modesty by declining a recent award for their Prius model.

First all, a big congratulations is in order for Apple for managing to get so much viral advertising, hype, and excitement before they even announced the existence of their product.   I was amazed at just how many articles and even web comics that I could read about it.  (I managed to restrain myself from adding to the preannouncement confusion.)  Apple has, of course, now made the official announcement for their tablet computer dubbed the iPad.  After looking through the official (and unofficial) information that I could find on it, I have to say that I just don’t get it.

The iPad is supposed to be filling the niche between smart cell phones and the world of laptops.  While trying to not damage the sale of other Apple products, Jobs claimed that smart phones are too small, laptops are too heavy, and netbooks are too slow for some applications.  Just like Goldilocks and the three bears, the iPad is supposed to be just right for these tasks.

The iPad to me just looks like a giant iPhone.  It doesn’t look convenient to hold and I doubt it any weight differences between it and many laptops on the market would matter to most.  It also seems to run the same operating system as the iPhone.  To me, when I buy something on the level of a tablet, it really needs to behave like a computer and the functionality of their mobile operating system just doesn’t cut it for me.

The input interface is also very important to me.  Without a proper keyboard, even a reduced-size one as found on netbooks, I can’t see the product being very effective.  I also have not seen any secondary, handwriting or voice controlled interface to make up for this.  An onscreen keyboard, especially ones that makes you switch back and forward between letters and numbers, is unacceptable to me for what is supposed to be more of a laptop environment.

I may be pleasantly surprised when I finally get a chance to hold one in my hands and play, but for the moment, the iPad just looks too big, too bulky, and too lacking in the interface to make me want one.

Wow.  Just wow.  I read about it a few days ago, had the time for it to sink in and adjust, but I still find it really weird.  The concept of a vending machine for pharmaceutical drugs sounds more like a joke than “the future” to me.  But seems to be the way things are going.

In truth, the idea sounds more like a remote controlled pharmacy than an actual vending machine.  Essentially when a patient comes up to the machine and activates it, it contacts a pharmacist on the other side. The pharmacist checks to ensure the patient has a valid prescription, then ensures that the machine counts out and vends the correct type and amount of drugs.  (If the machine is doing all the work, kind of makes you wonder what you pay the pharmacist so much for…)  In theory, the machine will have stored within all the crucial and typical drugs that are needed.

The pluses of such a system for patients is that they’ll have 24-hour access to a pharmacy, and they will likely be located in very easy and convenient locations, such as the emergency room of a hospital where they would have obtained their prescription.  For the pharmacist, it could enable them to cut down on overhead costs of running a pharmacy and even increase the number of customers that have access to them.

Some of the things that would worry me would be attacks and damage to the machine as people attempt to steal drugs.  If something goes wrong and the vending malfunctions, what can the pharmacist really to fix the problem in the short term, especially if the machine incorrectly just gave access to potentially harmful drugs?

This hardly sounds like the future to me, but to be fair, I think I’d have to see a few of these machines in action before I make too much fun of them.

J. D. Salinger, author of The Catcher in the Rye, died 27 January 2010.  If you grew up in an English-speaking nation, odds are that you had to read this book at some point in your academic career and either praised or cursed Salinger in the process.  While his passing away at the age of 91 is perhaps not shocking, it certainly does bring with it a few interesting possibilities.

You may think me harsh and cruel for not dwelling more on the loss to the world and literary community.  You may also think bad of me for not reflecting more on him as a person and coming to the end of his life.  The truth is though that he did live to an old age and he wasn’t contributing to the literary world much, having chosen a life outside the spotlight.

It is Salinger’s reclusive nature that leaves so many possibilities in his death.  Salinger actively prevented information being gathered about him for biographies and also blocked his work from being modified or built upon, such as a sequel or a movie based on his book.  Depending on the attitude of the new copyright owner of his work, this may change drastically.  Those close to Salinger are also more likely to come forward with personal information after his death.

I would be very surprised if we do not see biographies that are more thoroughly researched, with more details, and that are more accurate, coming out within the next couple of years.  I’m sure there are also people within Hollywood and even indie film companies that are already putting together their updated proposals for the movie adaptation of The Catcher in the Rye.

Would these things upset Salinger?  I’m sure he’d be rolling in his grave over every biography released or attempt to adapt his work.  But hey, this is the world we live in.

Making its way around the internet is the story of prisoners being banned from playing Dungeons and Dragons. (I’m helping of course.) Apparently it encourages gang-like behaviour and perhaps even encourages inmates to try escape from prison just like they escape from reality through the fantasy worlds.  Yes, just a couple of jokes have been made over the whole situation.

Okay, some more details:  This ban was effected in 2004 in the US in a prison in Madison Wisconsin.  It’s recently come to light because an inmate serving a life sentence for first-degree intentional murder challenged the rule in court and lost.

To me, the most obvious question is why would they ban a (mostly) nonviolent game that focuses more on storytelling and rolling dice when violent video games are allowed.  Not only allowed in some areas, but actually provided with government money.  I’m not trying to get people up in arms over violent video games, but if you’re worried about the effects of games on inmates, perhaps ones that actively have the player killing and performing violent acts should be considered first.  Each wave of video game system also strives to make the experience as “real” as possible with improved graphics, sound, physics, etc.

My second question is what is next?  If they can ban games like this, censorship on books and movies might be on the horizon.  Public Enemies with Johnny Depp’s character continually escaping from jail can’t be good for the image and morale of prisons.

Honestly, I would have felt better and understood what is going on more if they had simply used the reasoning that losing the freedom to play these games is just one of the many that are denied with being imprisoned.  Prisoners are in jail as part of punishment and rehabilitation, and not necessarily to be entitled to any form of enjoyment they wish.

After my last few posts on the rather heavy topics surrounding Haiti, I think I need to take a break with a more lighthearted topic in this one.  A recent xkcd comic (over at http://www.xkcd.com for those who haven’t discovered it yet) focused on the idea of childhood fantasy worlds.  The basic idea is that if a child ever did visit such a world, the person would only be left with two options:  1) pretend it never happened and live a normal life or 2) have people thinking you’re crazy.  Talking about this on its own would be fun, but I actually want to extend the idea one step further to the different types of fantasy worlds.  As I see it, you can divide them into two:  “secretive” worlds that exist alongside our “normal” one, and complete fantasy worlds that are separate from ours.  My question is which is better?

J. K. Rowling with her Harry Potter series and C. S. Lewis with his Narnia series are perfect examples of secretive worlds.  You have your average person who stumbles on this wondrous new world existing under the noses of everyone.  Within each fantasy world is the mechanics to keep it secret.  The reasoning behind this is simple; if you want to capture people’s imagination you need to weave in the idea that these worlds are possible and exist, and explain why the reader hasn’t discovered it yet on their own.  It is this type of world that the xkcd comic was poking fun at.

The second type of world exists more in stories like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings  Our is replaced by one filled with magic, elves, etc. novels.

Obviously both types of worlds can give you best sellers.  Both can also include the similar types of elements in the forms of magic, different races, and mythical animals and objects.  Where they differ is that the secretive world stories still leave children with that glimmer of hope that it is real and could happen to them.  It probably even lets many adults feel that way.  I know many people have very good imaginations, but, to me, this definitely helps draw one into the story much bette