Jumping through the hoop

I am taking some classes this term. Two of them are hoops to jump though. First there is Technical Drafting- not with AutoCAD, this class is by hand. Its very tedious, I probably won't ever use the skills I gain, but I'm kinda glad (3 on a scale from 1 - 10) that I'm leaning how to do it.

Secondly there is Technical Writing, a second English class that everyone has to take. In this class we learn about the proprieties of the English language, especially tailored to nerdy subjects - like computer science, engineering and the like. I discovered during the first period that the only technical writing I'll be doing is writing lesson plans, which are mainly for personal use, and sometimes for a sub, but I've already been instructed on how to write lesson plans in other classes. Mrs. Fieldstead isn't going to be able to teach me better.

I also realized another fact during the first few periods. My job, what I do, is in many ways the opposite of what Mrs Fieldstead does. English makes rules we all have to conform to, and its my job to break those rules and to make exceptions acceptable. Of course its not just my job, lots of other people do it. Thanks to all the technical experts on the world wide web.

If I wanted to research, say- video game usage in the classroom, I could if I really wanted to- look up the information in peer reviewed journals, something that I have to buy a subscription to or get through someone who has one. Or I could go find an 'expert' that has made his or her information accessible to the world through the internet. I wouldn't be able to cite a blog in a technical research paper though, but wait. . . If I was writing a paper for a scholarly journal, I would be contributing to the collaboration happening in those journals, something that could be called a very closed community (relatively). Or I could very easily contribute (what I can) to the collaboration happening online, a very real and extensive collaboration. If I was going to spend 500 calories contributing my two cents to something, which would be better? More accessible? More free? Easier to respond to, and comment? It would not be a journal. They don't contain the wealth of information they used to. The internet is a wealth of information that print could never ever duplicate.

The internet has its own rules about what is valuable and what isn't. The Wikipedia debate is still going on if it is credible enough to be cited in papers as an encyclopedia. They are kind of missing the point. Yes, anyone is allowed to edit the page and write what they want, and for that very reason it is one of the best sources you could ever want. Information isn't being produced by the Cambridge folk (its not all Webster, and Britanica, and high and might committees), its being provided by everyone in the world. What is posted on Wikipedia's pages are continually getting closer to the absolute truth, in the same way a mathematic graph approaches a limit.

My teacher went off on this mega-lecture about how bad the internet is. She had all these horror stories about incorrect information and it ruining peoples lives. Either the whole lecture was BS, or she didn't understand what she was talking about. Probably the latter. There isn't any good concrete reason that English has to be 10 years behind the times. I think the concept of open-source is a good metaphor. People write code that do very valuable things (openOffice, Firefox, Java, etc). By virtue of writing it down and creating something, it gets a copyright. BUT its still out in the open and everyone can use it. Hundreds or thousands of people do this- they make what they make open to the public, it still is copyrighted, but its open-source, you can take it, change it, use it, whatever, freely.

If information is valuable, "good" then its paid attention to, or the right people link to it. There is a very fluid way that "good" things come to the forefront, and "bad" things go down the chute. If you don't have any idea of what I'm talking about- look up: digg, del.icio.us, reddit, stubleupon, newsvine, or find out what the pbwiki is (link2) (link3).

This is what would be valuable from an English class: learning proper grammar and such (so I can stop the literary faux pas of doing something wrong and looking like an idiot), and learning about asking for grants and money (because that is important in education), and thats all, except everyone else might do well having to take an internet literacy course. The right action is to incorporate it, not to pretend its not there or is bad.

film: Spiderman 3

Jerman's rating: 4 steps forward, 1 step back. Defcon 3 (Moderate) for battle scenes, deaths, and bad attitudes. Everyone can watch and enjoy this movie, but it deals with love, vengeance, jealousy, friendship, and other strong forces. The people that will like it most will personify with the characters.

I'd like to explain the rating I've given it, but would like to do it in a way that doesn't give away anything from the movie. Those of you who know me well, know that I care very little about spoilers, I usually spoil myself before watching a movie. Well, every rule deserves an exception. This film is good; by good I mean moral, not cool, although it certainly is cool as well. The film isn't just structured by the morality, it kind of puts itself on the line- "I don't care if people are turned away by this, I'm being openly moral anyway."- is what the movie would say if it could talk.

The step back is for very trivial inconsequential things, like expecting rewards and praise for doing service, double standards for males and females, bending/breaking the rules in dire times, a few others. You may notice them, this movie is the perfect case for 1 step back, the immorality is very trivial, it's fantastic.

As I said above, this movie is about some pretty heavy stuff, and while it could bog you down, this film handles it all masterfully. Friends stabbing each other in the back, loyalties changing, forces of love, anger and revenge, and also about having a choice and choosing what's right.

This film could have just gone straight to the threat and then teach the morals, but the plot in this film IS the characters' development. And the morals are that much stronger. The good thing is that several characters are going through developments at the same time, not just Peter Parker; all of them have great things to teach. By the end you just love so many of the charcters, they are really great, or rather become realy great.

I have to include a paragraph about the artistry in this film. The cinematography is astounding, but while other movies use cinematography to paint still shots, this film uses it to paint moving shots, not beautiful as a still shot, but as a clip. It's quite amazing how they do it. The score is the best Spiderman score yet. The production design and costuming adds a lot, as you will see when you watch it for yourself. The special effects and computer animation is still blowing my mind, I have no idea how they did some of the things they shot.

After I watched this film, I had a feeling I've had only after watching certain other films. Only a few films get the "THIS is the reason I watch films." Every time I sit down to watch a movie, I'm secretly hoping it is going to be something specific, or general, but be it nonetheless. Spiderman 3 was that film. I hope that I can watch a Spiderman 3 kind of film every time I watch a new movie. I highly recommend that everyone see this film.