Just listened to Full Moon Over 1600, by Christopher Michael Cummings and read by Rick Stringer.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story! I didn't think I would at the start, when I realised it was focused on politics. However, I was hooked from the sentence "when a strange sensation crawls down his nose, into his throat"; this first hint that the President's lycanthropy had pushed him into a world of heightened senses. In other werewolf stories, those senses are used for hunting, fighting and generally eating people. In this story, it is what turns the President into a type of hero; and his eating people makes him a rather horrifying hero!
This is why I like "Full Moon Over 1600": in most stories I hear (fiction and non-fiction), presidents and were-wolves aren't usually good guys. In this story, becoming a were-wolf makes the president into a good guy! I enjoyed how Christopher Michael Cummings turned smell and intuition into a moral sense and it was amusing to find the "media spin" angle working for a good guy.
Perhaps most noticeable about this story is that it isn't just President as Were-wolf. Thanks to the voice of Rick Stringer, it was also Clint Eastwood as President and Werewolf!
There are questions in the Pseudopod forums about whether or not this a horror story. Thinking about this question was what led me to write this blog entry (and forum post).
I think it is a horror story. The were-wolf did some typical scary were-wolf things: i.e. eating people - but did so publicly, on camera, and it only increased his popularity! The contrasting figures of werewolf and president in this story were twisted together so that two common images appeared in one character in a disturbing way. This is what a good horror story should do: disturb the audience!
In a broader sense, the question isn't very important to me. Horror is visceral - therefore it is open to interpretation and different people will classify different things as being horrific. Someone thought it fit the genre, and I enjoyed the story with that in mind. Most of the time, that's all it takes for me. Even if I do find a "horror" story that I don't personally think is a horror story, I find value in the story just by wondering why we might be at odds; why that other person found it horrifying, even if I didn't.
A small side story. A friend once made a tape for me of Nick Cave's The Murder Ballads. Now that is one scary album! Each song creeped me out in a different way, with "O' Malley's Bar" being the song that burnt itself most strongly into my mind with a detailed portrayal of a twisted mind. This song was effective because the "detail" I mention came not just from the lyrics. It was Nick Cave's voice and the jarring melody that really gave me a sense of how insane the man was. I digress: the point being that this album was the most horrific music I had ever listened to (and I loved it!).. but at the end of the tape, my friend had included another song, "Into My Arms" from The Boatman's Call - an album of (ostensibly) love songs from Nick Cave that I had not heard about. The first verse:
I don't believe in an interventionist God
But I know, darling, that you do
But if I did I would kneel down and ask Him
Not to intervene when it came to you
Not to touch a hair on your head
To leave you as you are
And if He felt He had to direct you
Then direct you into my arms
After listening to a whole album of songs about twisted, murderous minds, this song fit perfectly! Even though I have the Boatman's Call on CD now and have enjoyed listening to it many times, I still think of "Into My Arms" as one of the most subtle and chilling works of horror ever!
Horror is visceral; if it feels like horror, it is horror; maybe not to other people. "Full Moon Over 1600" felt like a good horror to me.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Variant Frequencies: sci-fi, horror and fantasy podcast
While I was listening to an episode of Escape Pod yesterday I heard about a new podcast, and it is amazing! Unfortunately they only come up with about one a month, so it won't take me too long to catch up, but I will do so gladly!
Last Flight of the Esperanza
Fifteen ships left Earth in search of new places for humans to live. When the Esperanza 15 crashes, only one of the crew is left alive. How will she survive when she is the only human on an entire planet?
This story has sound effects: a sound-scape that intensified the level of imagery invoked by the narration of a magnificent forest world. I kept thinking of the forest as an ocean, and I enjoyed the contrast: slow moving creatures that could almost be translucent jelly fish with their long tendrils, and the height of the trees that felt like the depth of an ocean. Both images (forest and ocean) were imbued in my head with the same sense of age, alien and beauty.
Other themes I greatly enjoyed in this story were transmogrification, adaptation and acceptance - in that order I believe. :) For the protagonist of this story, it wasn't a matter of choice. But it got me thinking of another story I read years ago. "Waiting for the Rain" by Dirk Strasser (found Metaworlds - ISBN 0 14 023766 6). "Waiting for the Rain" is a very sad story with the same themes but in a different order: acceptance, transmogrification and adaptation.
First Born
This was a horror story, which to me seemed a blend of Omen (without the child) with a touch of Dogma (without the humour).
All the way through it, my sense of dread grew as I felt the inevitable conclusion draw me in. It was all in the voices, both written and spoken: the angels were all resigned, even at the start of the story. Resigned to the idea that there was no chance of redemption for anyone anymore, because the big G was gone; without evidence of a divine presence, time leached away their hope. It seemed even Raph was only continuing out of a sense of bloody mindedness.
I find this sense of resignation fascinating in vampire stories too: when they grow so old that they lose the ability to be interested in anything. When they become resigned to the idea that there is nothing worth .. un-living for anymore. In those stories it seems to me that it is fitting and right, because it shows that even their great evil can pass.
It this story, it is horrific - the wrong entities are giving up!
Perhaps the only sequel story to this should fall into the same vein as Louise Cooper’s Time-Master.. eventually, millennia from now, the pendulum will swing the other way.. Lu will be so bored of ‘ever lasting’ dominion that he will face his own sense of resignation…
Last Flight of the Esperanza
Fifteen ships left Earth in search of new places for humans to live. When the Esperanza 15 crashes, only one of the crew is left alive. How will she survive when she is the only human on an entire planet?
This story has sound effects: a sound-scape that intensified the level of imagery invoked by the narration of a magnificent forest world. I kept thinking of the forest as an ocean, and I enjoyed the contrast: slow moving creatures that could almost be translucent jelly fish with their long tendrils, and the height of the trees that felt like the depth of an ocean. Both images (forest and ocean) were imbued in my head with the same sense of age, alien and beauty.
Other themes I greatly enjoyed in this story were transmogrification, adaptation and acceptance - in that order I believe. :) For the protagonist of this story, it wasn't a matter of choice. But it got me thinking of another story I read years ago. "Waiting for the Rain" by Dirk Strasser (found Metaworlds - ISBN 0 14 023766 6). "Waiting for the Rain" is a very sad story with the same themes but in a different order: acceptance, transmogrification and adaptation.
First Born
This was a horror story, which to me seemed a blend of Omen (without the child) with a touch of Dogma (without the humour).
All the way through it, my sense of dread grew as I felt the inevitable conclusion draw me in. It was all in the voices, both written and spoken: the angels were all resigned, even at the start of the story. Resigned to the idea that there was no chance of redemption for anyone anymore, because the big G was gone; without evidence of a divine presence, time leached away their hope. It seemed even Raph was only continuing out of a sense of bloody mindedness.
I find this sense of resignation fascinating in vampire stories too: when they grow so old that they lose the ability to be interested in anything. When they become resigned to the idea that there is nothing worth .. un-living for anymore. In those stories it seems to me that it is fitting and right, because it shows that even their great evil can pass.
It this story, it is horrific - the wrong entities are giving up!
Perhaps the only sequel story to this should fall into the same vein as Louise Cooper’s Time-Master.. eventually, millennia from now, the pendulum will swing the other way.. Lu will be so bored of ‘ever lasting’ dominion that he will face his own sense of resignation…
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Spiderman 3
I have also put this review on IMDB.com and Escape Pod.
I saw Spiderman 3 recently and enjoyed it greatly for the special effects and for the new bad guys it introduces.
Most of all I empathised with and cheered for Thomas Haden Church's Sandman. His creation scene was sad and poignant: a poor man battling so much bad luck. He couldn't keep his family together and now cannot even keep himself together! I found Sandman's creation scene emotionally resonant with the sand blown scene in Altered States - which I imagined to be an allegory for two people who loved each other but were growing apart so slowly they didn't notice it any more.
An aspect of the first and second Spiderman movies that I most enjoyed was the emotional wrangling Peter Parker went through with his love for MJ. He loves her, but he feels as though he should reject that love, because he cannot protect her from the evil in his life. Ironically, he has brought the evil into his own life by choosing to "fight crime", to be a hero.
By implication, he is choosing the life of a hero over the life of a lover, a partner.
Why does he make this choice? What can make Spiderman reject the love of a good woman? Does he find the draw of being a hero, of having power and glory to be greater than the joy and satisfaction of having a partner? I won't mention the sex. Or does the emotional and moral imperative to help people form an irresistible urge that draws him to the inevitable conclusion that since he can't both help people and have a lover whom he can protect, helping people is what must win out.
I think the first and third movies present different answers to this question. In the first movie I felt that Peter Parker was irresistibly drawn to helping people. But in the third movie, he was after the glory! He fights so hard to make sure Spiderman gets good news paper coverage. Sure, he was under the influence of the black gunk - but it just exaggerates what is already there, so Peter loves the power and glory too.
Escape Pod has a very thoughtful review of Spiderman 3. It questions how easily Peter Parker rids himself of evil. He can strip off the black gunk and is immediately absolved of the evil he has committed (at least in the eyes of the audience). "We always have a choice", Peter says, yet in the words of the reviewer Jonathon Sullivan, Peter Parker paid the smallest price for his own evil.
The problem, Sullivan says, is that true evil comes from humans, not from external objects like black gunk from the sky. By relegating the source of Peter Parker's evil actions to the black gunk, we don't get to examine the true source of evil - the dark thoughts and desires in our hearts.
I find this to be a valid and important point. I was thrilled when Spidey managed to wipe the gunk off himself and "gong it to death", and I enjoyed the resolution he found with Sandman at the end.
However, as I was walking out I wondered "how many people died in the scenes they portrayed?" The movie showed lots of buildings and property getting destroyed - but surely all that damage would have taken quite a few people out as well. The aspect of "Collateral Damage" wasn't addressed - did Peter Parker have nightmares about the innocents who died while he was wearing the black suit? Perhaps this is common enough for all superheroes (or police, or soldiers..): in trying to do good deeds, sometimes innocent people get hurt.
Something I really wanted from Spiderman 3 was a bit more acknowledgment that tearing off the black suit doesn't mean Spiderman has torn all evil thoughts from his heart. It just means they aren't being amplified anymore. Some people will say that was reflected by his statement that "we always have a choice" - the choice to follow through with our dark desires or not. That is true, but I still wanted something more: something I see in shows like Law & Order. That final look on the face of the main character, a lawyer, cop, DA, coffee boy etc: thoughtful but uncomfortable. They are thinking: "something bad has happened, unavoidable, necessary perhaps, but bad - and it can never be taken back.. I hope I can live with myself."
I saw Spiderman 3 recently and enjoyed it greatly for the special effects and for the new bad guys it introduces.
Most of all I empathised with and cheered for Thomas Haden Church's Sandman. His creation scene was sad and poignant: a poor man battling so much bad luck. He couldn't keep his family together and now cannot even keep himself together! I found Sandman's creation scene emotionally resonant with the sand blown scene in Altered States - which I imagined to be an allegory for two people who loved each other but were growing apart so slowly they didn't notice it any more.
An aspect of the first and second Spiderman movies that I most enjoyed was the emotional wrangling Peter Parker went through with his love for MJ. He loves her, but he feels as though he should reject that love, because he cannot protect her from the evil in his life. Ironically, he has brought the evil into his own life by choosing to "fight crime", to be a hero.
By implication, he is choosing the life of a hero over the life of a lover, a partner.
Why does he make this choice? What can make Spiderman reject the love of a good woman? Does he find the draw of being a hero, of having power and glory to be greater than the joy and satisfaction of having a partner? I won't mention the sex. Or does the emotional and moral imperative to help people form an irresistible urge that draws him to the inevitable conclusion that since he can't both help people and have a lover whom he can protect, helping people is what must win out.
I think the first and third movies present different answers to this question. In the first movie I felt that Peter Parker was irresistibly drawn to helping people. But in the third movie, he was after the glory! He fights so hard to make sure Spiderman gets good news paper coverage. Sure, he was under the influence of the black gunk - but it just exaggerates what is already there, so Peter loves the power and glory too.
Escape Pod has a very thoughtful review of Spiderman 3. It questions how easily Peter Parker rids himself of evil. He can strip off the black gunk and is immediately absolved of the evil he has committed (at least in the eyes of the audience). "We always have a choice", Peter says, yet in the words of the reviewer Jonathon Sullivan, Peter Parker paid the smallest price for his own evil.
The problem, Sullivan says, is that true evil comes from humans, not from external objects like black gunk from the sky. By relegating the source of Peter Parker's evil actions to the black gunk, we don't get to examine the true source of evil - the dark thoughts and desires in our hearts.
I find this to be a valid and important point. I was thrilled when Spidey managed to wipe the gunk off himself and "gong it to death", and I enjoyed the resolution he found with Sandman at the end.
However, as I was walking out I wondered "how many people died in the scenes they portrayed?" The movie showed lots of buildings and property getting destroyed - but surely all that damage would have taken quite a few people out as well. The aspect of "Collateral Damage" wasn't addressed - did Peter Parker have nightmares about the innocents who died while he was wearing the black suit? Perhaps this is common enough for all superheroes (or police, or soldiers..): in trying to do good deeds, sometimes innocent people get hurt.
Something I really wanted from Spiderman 3 was a bit more acknowledgment that tearing off the black suit doesn't mean Spiderman has torn all evil thoughts from his heart. It just means they aren't being amplified anymore. Some people will say that was reflected by his statement that "we always have a choice" - the choice to follow through with our dark desires or not. That is true, but I still wanted something more: something I see in shows like Law & Order. That final look on the face of the main character, a lawyer, cop, DA, coffee boy etc: thoughtful but uncomfortable. They are thinking: "something bad has happened, unavoidable, necessary perhaps, but bad - and it can never be taken back.. I hope I can live with myself."
Escape Pod: Impossible Dreams
I recently listened to one of the most memorable short story/audio podcasts on Escape Pod: Impossible Dreams.
The story is a fantasy genre love tale about two lonely souls meeting each other in a Video Store that shouldn't be there.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story, and came away from it feeling satisfied, as though everything in the story fit perfectly together, from beginning to end.
The Magnificent Ambersons. The main character is a movie buff. "He believed in movies the way some people believed in God" and this story portrayed his passion in such an earnest fashion. I did not know about Orson Welle's movie. When I finished listening to the story, I read about The Magnificent Ambersons just to see if it was real. The story behind The Magnificent Ambersons is tragic because it is infused with sense of so much potential lost. I cared so much about the protagonists in this story because I felt that their lives also seemed imbued with a sense of lost potential.
The protagonists are ordinary people in an urban 80's to 00's world. There is nothing special about them, they are lonely, they are struggling, they are trying to do the best they can. I empathised strongly with the characters because of this. The story wasn't sappy or romantic; it portrayed a burgeoning attraction that made my heart beat faster, hoping it would have the chance to grow into something more. The resolution of the story was satisfying: it painted the final details of the characters perfectly, their actions succinctly matching the images I had built up in my head for each of them.
It was simply beautiful: think of the most soulful love song you have ever heard, and you will be playing that song in your head as you think about this story later..
2007 Hugo Nominee!
"Impossible Dreams" by Tim Pratt.
Read by Matthew Wayne Selznick.
First appeared in Asimov’s Science Fiction, July 2006.
The story is a fantasy genre love tale about two lonely souls meeting each other in a Video Store that shouldn't be there.
I thoroughly enjoyed this story, and came away from it feeling satisfied, as though everything in the story fit perfectly together, from beginning to end.
The Magnificent Ambersons. The main character is a movie buff. "He believed in movies the way some people believed in God" and this story portrayed his passion in such an earnest fashion. I did not know about Orson Welle's movie. When I finished listening to the story, I read about The Magnificent Ambersons just to see if it was real. The story behind The Magnificent Ambersons is tragic because it is infused with sense of so much potential lost. I cared so much about the protagonists in this story because I felt that their lives also seemed imbued with a sense of lost potential.
The protagonists are ordinary people in an urban 80's to 00's world. There is nothing special about them, they are lonely, they are struggling, they are trying to do the best they can. I empathised strongly with the characters because of this. The story wasn't sappy or romantic; it portrayed a burgeoning attraction that made my heart beat faster, hoping it would have the chance to grow into something more. The resolution of the story was satisfying: it painted the final details of the characters perfectly, their actions succinctly matching the images I had built up in my head for each of them.
It was simply beautiful: think of the most soulful love song you have ever heard, and you will be playing that song in your head as you think about this story later..
2007 Hugo Nominee!
"Impossible Dreams" by Tim Pratt.
Read by Matthew Wayne Selznick.
First appeared in Asimov’s Science Fiction, July 2006.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Eric Bana and the Incredible Lycra Shorts.. err, Hulk!
Saw this in 2003 and loved it!
My IMDB review from 2003! (Text below.)
thought The Hulk was an amazing movie.
I nominate it for First Prize in all movie awards in the `Make-Up and Special Effects' category for the most stunning effect in the whole movie: Eric Banna/Bruce Banner's Super Stretchy Lycra Shorts!
I grew up with Lou Ferrigno's Hulk and it was a wonderful surprise catching his cameo.
Even though I never read The Hulk comics, I greatly appreciated the added color (apart from green!) brought to the movie by the comic book style `split screens, wipes, fades, and boxes'. The story told by the movie shows a warm compassion for my favourite main characters, Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Betty's Military Dad) and Nick Nolte (Bruce's Father - a most satisfying anti-hero).
The Hulk effects were very exciting on the big screen, and it fit perfectly with the efforts made to fill in the story of Bruce and his father.
I was getting a tad restless in some parts towards the end of the movie when the energy of the film starts to slide a bit, but I was just too hyped from the action scenes!
My favourite scene: watching Eric Bana's charismatic face made huge, green and angry and then sad, lost, confused and somewhat love struck by the tender face of Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross). (For some reason, it reminded me of a very funny Eric Bana in Channel 10's Full Frontal - used to be on Australian TV 1992 to 1994.)
My IMDB review from 2003! (Text below.)
thought The Hulk was an amazing movie.
I nominate it for First Prize in all movie awards in the `Make-Up and Special Effects' category for the most stunning effect in the whole movie: Eric Banna/Bruce Banner's Super Stretchy Lycra Shorts!
I grew up with Lou Ferrigno's Hulk and it was a wonderful surprise catching his cameo.
Even though I never read The Hulk comics, I greatly appreciated the added color (apart from green!) brought to the movie by the comic book style `split screens, wipes, fades, and boxes'. The story told by the movie shows a warm compassion for my favourite main characters, Eric Bana (Bruce Banner), Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross), Sam Elliott (Betty's Military Dad) and Nick Nolte (Bruce's Father - a most satisfying anti-hero).
The Hulk effects were very exciting on the big screen, and it fit perfectly with the efforts made to fill in the story of Bruce and his father.
I was getting a tad restless in some parts towards the end of the movie when the energy of the film starts to slide a bit, but I was just too hyped from the action scenes!
My favourite scene: watching Eric Bana's charismatic face made huge, green and angry and then sad, lost, confused and somewhat love struck by the tender face of Jennifer Connelly (Betty Ross). (For some reason, it reminded me of a very funny Eric Bana in Channel 10's Full Frontal - used to be on Australian TV 1992 to 1994.)
Babylon 5: Thirdspace
Just aw it today and loved it!
Check out my IMDB review (text below).
loved this movie - I have been so thirsty for more Babylon 5, that even the elevator scene didn't faze me.
The aspect I love most about this movie is "One mistake out of so many." I love it that the Vorlons.. almost the "angels" in Babylon 5 universe, are ultimately as screwy as we are. They have things they regret; they made enormous errors. A poignant example of this arrogance is trying to reach another dimension thinking they would be Gods there too.
This thought brings another question to mind: why are the dominant race of the "Third Dimension" so hooked on wanting to kill everybody else? Working on a common underlying theme of Babylon 5 - that no-one is all bad (or all good) - maybe they thought of themselves as Gods once too, just like the Vorlons. Maybe they brought up some other race out of the 'dark ages' only to be savaged and almost destroyed by them, so from that point on they took the view that they should protect themselves by killing everyone else. This thought occurred to me as I was wondering what their story was, when the Vorlon memory inside Lyta said they were "anti life".
The elevator scene certainly didn't really belong - mostly because AFAIK it didn't link into any other love interest between those two characters in the rest of the show.
I found the ending to be quite satisfying for the most part. Galactic devastation avoided by the narrowest of margins.. *phew* :) Of course, the stunning effects played their usual brilliant part.
Two aspects of the action at the end didn't make sense.
1. What happened to the ships that made it through when the device was destroyed? Surely there were plenty that had come through. Surely they wouldn't have simply been destroyed by the gate being destroyed.
2. The being that Sheridan encountered inside the Gate seemed like it was an ancient and malevolent intelligence. "Intelligence" being the operative word, why didn't it pay any attention to the BOMB Sheridan placed there?
If it was the same tentacled thing that inhabited Ivanova's dream, it seems to me that it is smart. It seemed prescient enough to know that Centauri females would be enough to seduce Vir and that Ivanova was rebellious enough that she should be killed. Maybe I am incorrectly interpreting the dream, but it seemed to indicate that there was a driving intelligence in the background, something that could read peoples *intentions*.
So why did it seem to ignore the bomb? Perhaps the bomb was so alien to the ..um.. alien, it didn't know what to make of it and wouldn't have been able to de-activate it anyway. But the movie only showed the alien trying to stop Sheridan leaving. I felt it should have showed some curiosity about what Sheridan left there; I refuse to believe the alien simply didn't see or understand what Sheridan was doing!
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie and would give it a solid 8 out 10. It filled my hunger for Babylon 5 (for now...).
Check out my IMDB review (text below).
loved this movie - I have been so thirsty for more Babylon 5, that even the elevator scene didn't faze me.
The aspect I love most about this movie is "One mistake out of so many." I love it that the Vorlons.. almost the "angels" in Babylon 5 universe, are ultimately as screwy as we are. They have things they regret; they made enormous errors. A poignant example of this arrogance is trying to reach another dimension thinking they would be Gods there too.
This thought brings another question to mind: why are the dominant race of the "Third Dimension" so hooked on wanting to kill everybody else? Working on a common underlying theme of Babylon 5 - that no-one is all bad (or all good) - maybe they thought of themselves as Gods once too, just like the Vorlons. Maybe they brought up some other race out of the 'dark ages' only to be savaged and almost destroyed by them, so from that point on they took the view that they should protect themselves by killing everyone else. This thought occurred to me as I was wondering what their story was, when the Vorlon memory inside Lyta said they were "anti life".
The elevator scene certainly didn't really belong - mostly because AFAIK it didn't link into any other love interest between those two characters in the rest of the show.
I found the ending to be quite satisfying for the most part. Galactic devastation avoided by the narrowest of margins.. *phew* :) Of course, the stunning effects played their usual brilliant part.
Two aspects of the action at the end didn't make sense.
1. What happened to the ships that made it through when the device was destroyed? Surely there were plenty that had come through. Surely they wouldn't have simply been destroyed by the gate being destroyed.
2. The being that Sheridan encountered inside the Gate seemed like it was an ancient and malevolent intelligence. "Intelligence" being the operative word, why didn't it pay any attention to the BOMB Sheridan placed there?
If it was the same tentacled thing that inhabited Ivanova's dream, it seems to me that it is smart. It seemed prescient enough to know that Centauri females would be enough to seduce Vir and that Ivanova was rebellious enough that she should be killed. Maybe I am incorrectly interpreting the dream, but it seemed to indicate that there was a driving intelligence in the background, something that could read peoples *intentions*.
So why did it seem to ignore the bomb? Perhaps the bomb was so alien to the ..um.. alien, it didn't know what to make of it and wouldn't have been able to de-activate it anyway. But the movie only showed the alien trying to stop Sheridan leaving. I felt it should have showed some curiosity about what Sheridan left there; I refuse to believe the alien simply didn't see or understand what Sheridan was doing!
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie and would give it a solid 8 out 10. It filled my hunger for Babylon 5 (for now...).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Podcasts I love
My iPod and radio transmitter (and bud earphones, and shell earphones, and $100 computer speakers and sub woofer) are daily companions of mine, providing the kind of on-call entertainment that the radio's unforgiving schedule never can!
Below is a list of my faviourite podcasts. You can search for any of these by name in iTunes.
So many shows from ABC's Radio National. I love our Australian public broadcaster!
Technical podcasts, can be Java specific or not.
Comedy
Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Horror!
Gaming.. as in computer games or RPG's
Writing
Below is a list of my faviourite podcasts. You can search for any of these by name in iTunes.
So many shows from ABC's Radio National. I love our Australian public broadcaster!
- Background Briefing
- Big Ideas
- In Conversation
- Late Night Live
- Movie Time
- Music Show, The
- Philosopher's Zone
- The Law Report
- The Media Report
- The Night Air
- The Religion Report
- The Science Show
Technical podcasts, can be Java specific or not.
- Aussie Tech Head
- DrunkAndRetired.com Podcast. Usually on topic Java talk, sometimes amusing off topic talk, sometimes "I wish they were retired - from podcasting!"
- The Java Posse. Excellent chat about everything Java from guys who sound like they know what they are talking about!
- this WEEK in TECH. Wide variety of coverage for anything tech related (rarely programming related though. Cool range of panel members, sometimes annoying when they all talk over each other.
Comedy
- Kasper Hauser Comedy Podcast
- The Chaser's War on Everything - another ABC product, this time from ABC the TV Station
- triple j Raw Comedy - another ABC product, this time from our "youth oriented" Radio Station
Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Horror!
- British Science Fiction Podcast
- Escape Pod - brilliant, excellent podcast for sci-fi short stories
- Pseudopod - brilliant, excellent podcast for horror short stories
- Sci Fi Saturday Night
- Sci-Fi and Fantasy Podcast
- The Sci-Fi and Fantasy Podcast
- Variant Frequencies
Gaming.. as in computer games or RPG's
- Have Games, Will Travel
- One Life Left
Writing
- Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing
Maths: Long Division, or DMSCB - Does McDonalds Sell Cheese Burgers
I might be a programmer, but it was recently revealed to me that I couldn't remember how I was taught long division in school.
Finished laughing at me yet?
I searched around and found the technique, but didn't find enough examples that I understood the technique again straight away. Here is my attempt to clear that up for anyone else who forgets how to do long division (not that I am implying anything of course...).
The rule: Does McDonalds Sell Cheese Burgers.
A.K.A. DMSCB
A.K.A. Divide Multiply Subtract Check Bring down.
Example: 956 / 18.
Divide
Multiply
Subtract
Check that that the result of your subtraction is smaller than your divisor.
Start over again..
Divide
Multiply
Subtract
Check that that the result of your subtraction is smaller than your divisor.
Bring down digits that haven't been divided yet.
And repeat..
Divide Multiply Subtract Check Bring down.
Multiply
Subtract
Check
Bring down... nothing to bring down, so we have our answer.
Another example with much better presentation (but without the Cheese) is given by mathsisfun.com.
The first example of DMSCB that I found in my search helped a lot. It is on Shannan's Math Web Site on AngelFire, but I didn't find it sufficient because it didn't explain the Cheese. :)
On the same site I found an example of another technique, which I think is more useful for numbers larger than 4 digits. Check out this Partial-Quotients Example.
True story: I learned for myself what the Cheese was, when I made the very mistake I showed up top (18 goes into 95 only 4 times)! Yeah, you can laugh at me now. :)
Finished laughing at me yet?
I searched around and found the technique, but didn't find enough examples that I understood the technique again straight away. Here is my attempt to clear that up for anyone else who forgets how to do long division (not that I am implying anything of course...).
The rule: Does McDonalds Sell Cheese Burgers.
A.K.A. DMSCB
A.K.A. Divide Multiply Subtract Check Bring down.
Example: 956 / 18.
Divide
+-----
18 | 956
18 into 9? No.
18 into 95? 4 times.
4
+-----
18 | 956
Multiply
4
+-----
18 | 956
4 * 18 = 72
4
+-----
18 | 956
72
Subtract
4
+-----
18 | 956
72
95 - 72 = 23
4
+-----
18 | 956
- 72
-----
23
Check that that the result of your subtraction is smaller than your divisor.
4
+-----
18 | 956
- 72
-----
23
23 > 18 ... made a mistake!
Start over again..
Divide
+-----
18 | 956
18 into 9? No.
18 into 95? 5 times.
5
+-----
18 | 956
Multiply
5
+-----
18 | 956
5 * 18 = 90
5
+-----
18 | 956
90
Subtract
5
+-----
18 | 956
90
95 - 90 = 5
5
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
5
Check that that the result of your subtraction is smaller than your divisor.
5
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
5
5 < 18 ... whew!
Bring down digits that haven't been divided yet.
5
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
5
Bring the 6 from 956 down to the 5, to make 56.
5
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
And repeat..
Divide Multiply Subtract Check Bring down.
5
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
18 into 5? No.
18 into 56? 3 times.
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
Multiply
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
3 * 18 = 54
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
54
Subtract
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
54
56 = 54 = 2
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
-54
-----
2
Check
53
+-----
18 | 956
-90
-----
56
-54
-----
2
2 < 18
Bring down... nothing to bring down, so we have our answer.
53 R 2
+-----
18 | 956
956 / 18 = 53 R 2
Another example with much better presentation (but without the Cheese) is given by mathsisfun.com.
The first example of DMSCB that I found in my search helped a lot. It is on Shannan's Math Web Site on AngelFire, but I didn't find it sufficient because it didn't explain the Cheese. :)
On the same site I found an example of another technique, which I think is more useful for numbers larger than 4 digits. Check out this Partial-Quotients Example.
True story: I learned for myself what the Cheese was, when I made the very mistake I showed up top (18 goes into 95 only 4 times)! Yeah, you can laugh at me now. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)