Ah, but that’s the neurosis of the Western mind; what can be done about it? Nothing

But even though I’m reticent about making resolutions, I have been thinking about the year that lies ahead, particularly from a professional standpoint. Over the last year, I’ve been very productive in my professional development. Particularly in relation to ColdFusion, JavaScript and SQL, I have tremendously expanded my competency, and I feel quite comfortable with where I am as a developer.

However, as we all know, complacency can be a silent killer. While it may not immediately harm a person in relation to their employment prospects, it can be detrimental in the long-term, if nothing else than by souring them to the prospects of learning new skills, exploring new technologies, etc.

I don’t want this to ever happen. I don’t feel like it’s a particular danger right now; I’m a naturally inquisitive person, so exploring new technologies, improving skills, etc. is just something I like to do. However, I do see this problem manifest in others, and I don’t like what it looks like. So, in my pre-emptive attempts to ward off such a fate, I’ve come up with a resolution (or two) of sorts for 2012.

Becoming “Expert”

When it comes to ColdFusion and JavaScript development, I feel very confident in my abilities. For any task, no matter the complexity, I am more than capable of crafting a solution that utilizes these technologies. I don’t say that in arrogance; it’s simply a fact. Ater so many years of using each, I can accomplish many things…and very quickly at that.

But while I am fully capable of using these technologies, I am also keenly aware of the extent (and limitations) of my competency. I have no delusions about my understanding of CF and JS. Yes, I can use them quite capably to do just about anything that is proposed. However, in regard to a more fundamental knowledge about the technology qua technology, I find many gaps in my understanding.

Therefore, one of the things that I want to pursue in 2012 is to begin a journey of becoming “expert” in ColdFusion and JavaScript. To me, the “expert” part that I’m missing is precisely this deeper understanding of how each technology *works* apart from the day-to-day grind of *using* them to accomplish discreet tasks. So this will mean that I will probably be doing a lot more reading about the technologies than actually using them. And you know what? I think that’s okay. The school of “learning by doing” has gotten me a VERY long way in my career. However, I think the next step wil come only by a very deep commitment to learning the bits that won’t necessarily come by trial and error.

You’ll notice I said “begin a journey.” I don’t expect to become “expert” by the end of 2012. However, I do want to determine a path that will get me where I intend to go. If I can accomplish just that, 2012 will have been a success.

Explore New Frontiers

One of the biggest keys to professional development, especially when it comes to web development, is to have an expansive portfolio of skills. This doesn’t mean, of course, that one needs to be “expert” in 7 different languages; that would probably be impossible for most people. However, it does mean that one is open to actively pursuing an understanding of how different technologies work and how each can be leveraged in various situations to accomplish particular goals.

In the coming year, there are a lot of technologies that I want to explore. In order to not get completely overwhelmed, I’m going to take a dual approach.

First, I’ve selected a handful that I want to do more of a “deep dive” into; these will require several weeks/months of exploration each. By the end of the year, I’d like to be able to say that I have a base-level competency with each technology–not something on the basis of which you’d hire me, but a working knowledge expansive enough to be able to accomplish something, and a solid foundation upon which I can build in the future. Here are the targets:

• Ruby
• Node.js
• jQuery
• Python
• ORM
• Git

Second, I want to build time into each week to take an hour or two to make a surface exploration of new technologies/snippets/etc. that I come across in the course of my daily blog trolling. So for example, if a new JavaScript framework is highlighted in one of the blogs I read, I want to explore that. My intention is, at the very most, to devote enough time to make a surface exploration. While this will not by any means make me competent in this or that technology, I think the practice will help to expand my skill set, simply by seeing how other people do things. I don’t have a discreet list for these, as I hope to leave time open for exploration as opportunities present themselves.

Avoiding Blackhole Projects

Over the last year, I found myself buried in blackhole projects. These were projects that I came up with on my own that didn’t have particular goals, or defined execution plans. With each of them, I started with the *intention* of learning/doing something new. However, I dreamed way too big, never accomplished whatever I had set out to do, and wasted a ton of time and effort for nothing except frustration.

In 2012, I’m going to make a concerted effort to avoid projects altogether. I’ve found that projects tend to devour an inordinate amount of time, simply because I end up spending a lot of effort on things that aren’t even central to the project itself (like getting the design pixel perfect, abstracting the 20 lines of JavaScript being used, etc.). So instead of using projects as a way of exploring this or that technology, I’m going to try to focus on simply executing very small, manageable development tasks. Whether this is simply creating a nice “Hello world” or developing some extension/module/whatever, keeping the scope tiny and defined will hopefully help me be much more productive in my learning and exploration.

Blogging

My blogging output in 2011 was a little underwhelming. While I did add some fairly in-depth posts, the number of posts was a bit disappointing. While quantity doesn’t really mean anything, it does reiterate to me the project blackhole problem I had during the year. So one of the things I really want to focus on in 2012 is becoming a better blogger. For me, I think this means being more intentional about regularly positing my experiences, while also not being quite so concerned with feeling like I have to write a novel each time.

Wrapping Up

So, it’s an ambitious plan for 2012. However, I’ve already made one important step: today, I officially abandoned a blackhole project that I had started last week. I’m beginning with a clean slate, and am looking forward to a great year of leaning, improving, and expansion of my development skills.

If anyone has any constructive thoughts/suggestions, I’d love to hear them!

The last several weeks have been *crazy*, and I’m also in the process of switching hosting companies. Once things settle down a bit (hopefully next week), I’ll be back to blogging more regularly.

It seems pretty obvious that her “joke” was a calculated rhetorical ploy to connect with her audience that day, so I think speculation about whether or not she actually “believes” that these disasters were somehow ordained by God are unnecessary. However, joking aside, there are many others–like the now predictable Mr. Robertson–who sincerely believe that this or that natural disaster are not only initiated by God, but are moreover intended to bring about some desired end. That is, the devastation is not just punitive; it’s also supposed to bring about a change in behavior.

But what change? The problem, of course, is how one is supposed to interpret a divinely ordained natural disaster. Earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes are hardly *targeted* phenomenon. So if the presumed instigator of God’s holy wrath is particular sins by particular people (you know, the usual: homosexuality, supporting comprehensive health care reform, or voting for Obama), how does one discern against whom (or what) the natural disaster is directed when everyone in the path of the devastation will be equally impacted? If the “righteous” and the “wicked” alike are drowned, crushed, or blown away, how do you figure out who the special object of God’s anger is?

So I’m left with a burning question. Why do the “liberals” let the “conservatives” have the corner on blaming God for natural disasters? Why not turn the tables and do the same? Instead of Irene coming because God is dis-pleased with the amount of spending in Washington, why not claim that God sent Irene because Washington isn’t spending enough money (you know, to help the poor and stuff). Or because God wants another stimulus (it’s the economy, stupid). Or God because is hacked off that the rich aren’t paying their fair share of taxes (a veritable gold-mine here…you’re welcome!).

Why lose all those easy political points? Go for it! The content really isn’t important, after all, as long as God is on your side and–most importantly–the people you are trying to deceive (you are a politician, after all) believe it too.

The Rules

Ok, first of all, I don’t think there are *really* any hard-and-fast zombie rules. Sure, some will argue about whether zombies should be able to run, or whether they should be intelligent enough to organize efforts on a minimal level, or whether they should have enough dexterity to turn a doorknob. But in my thinking, trying to pigeon-hole such an expansive field of horror-creature is just wrong.

So these are not the kinds of rules that I’m talking about. I personally don’t care if zombies can run or are only capable of ambling about. I don’t care if they have sufficient strength to break through a wall, or if they are only able to mindlessly pound on a door. And while I don’t particularly care for thinking or–gasp!–talking zombies, I’m not necessarily against them…so long as they follow the rules.

The rules, then, are very simple. They are completely a product of my own not-yet-zombified brain, so feel free to disagree. I will outline them in detail below, but for simplicity’s sake, they all orbit a common idea of CONSISTENCY. Let your zombie be what it will be…just let it be consistent. I will be happy with that, and your zombie movie will probably get a passing nod. However, if you violate this one overarching rule, no number of over-paid actors, amazing special effects, or number of head shots will redeem the fiasco that you have perpetrated upon zombie-dom.

Rule #1:  Clearly Define a Zombie’s Abilities

This one is hugely important, because it’s one of the bedrocks of identifying with the survivors’ plight. What I mean by this is that when you clearly articulate the range of a zombie’s abilities, I can imagine myself in the shoes of those fighting the zombies. I can imagine having to deal with the forces of undead being amassed against me. If, however, you play fast-and-loose with what zombies can and cannot do, then there is no element of realism to it. I remain a disaffected viewer, simply trudging through whatever scenes you throw at me with no real landmark for connecting to the events that unfold.

For example, consider a zombie’s strength. Let’s say that a zombie can punch a decaying fist through a cabin wall (such as in Dead Snow). Fine, I can deal with that. But given that definition of the zombie’s power, there should never be a scene in the same movie where one of the survivors is successfully fending off a zombie attack with his (or her) bare hands. Realistically, if a zombie can punch through a wall of wood, the same zombie can easily overpower any human defense in close-quarters combat. So don’t try to pull any of that.

In the same vein, be consistent about a zombie’s general speed. If a zombie can run, that’s perfectly fine and good. Heck, if a zombie can teleport, I’m okay with that too. However, if a zombie can teleport, please don’t show scenes of zombies chasing survivors on foot, as if there is some chance of them outrunning the teleportation-enabled zombies. Let teleporting zombies teleport, and let them do it with gusto.

Before moving on, a critical part of this is that as survivors come to understand the zombies’ strengths, they should begin to consistently act in ways that are designed to overcome the strengths (if possible). So if zombies can punch through walls, survivors should not naively continue depending on the same kinds of walls in the hope that “perhaps this one” will not be broken through. Rather, they should do those things which might prevent “this other wall” from being compromised, like barricading it with furniture, nailing up several layers of boards, etc. And if they become aware that zombies can–and do–consistently use teleportation or other forms of super-speed to move about, the survivors should be working on ways of achieiving faster-than-foot speed, like a car, helicopter, etc. They may not have any hope of actually achieving these ends (that’s another matter altogether), but they should not then simply and naively believe that they can accomplish what they need simply by outrunning teleporting zombies.

Rule #2: Clearly Define a Zombie’s Weaknesses

This is similar to Rule #1, but probably more important. All zombies should have weaknesses–after all, if they are ultimately un-killable, there’s no point in holding out any hope that the survivors might make it to another day. Therefore, good zombies movies must clearly define zombie weaknesses and stick to them.

So, if zombies can be killed by the classic destruction of the brain, then head shots, spikes to the head, large falling boulders, and the like should kill zombies (not just the first killed zombie where the survivors happen to get a head shot and have an epiphany about head-shots).

And as with Rule #1, once the protagonists figure out the zombies’ weaknesses, a good zombie movie will have them seeking to exploit these weaknesses as much as possible. So just as fire is used often throughout Night of the Living Dead to repel the horde, survivors should seek to deal the right kind of damage to each zombie as much as it is in their power to do so. What this means, then, is that survivors should not suddenly forget that head shots kill zombies as they go on a below-the-neck shooting spree. While they might certainly miss on several (maybe even most) occasions, they should be primarily motivated to do that which they know will be most effective against the zombies. If your zombie movie depends upon the survivors forgetting or simply ignoring such epiphanies (whether intentionally or simply because of bad writing) that they’ve already had, then you’ve made a bad movie.

Rule #3: Clearly Define a Zombie’s Motivations

This is big one for me, but it can get a little tricky.

In most zombie flicks, zombies are after human flesh. Whether they are actually hungry, or simply like the taste, most zombies want to much on brains, skin, or whatever. The tricky part to work out, however, is what a zombie does once he’s gotten what he’s after. Let me explain.

Imagine that a single zombie (a bit unrealistic, but whatever) is faced with 5 survivors. Let’s even imagine that this is one of the able-to-punch-through-walls kinds of zombie (see Rule #1). Given this scenario, will the zombie:

• Attack one survivor and immediately begin feasting on it
• Attack all 5 survivors before starting in on his snack
• ???

This is important because, as with Rules #1 and #2, this gets at the issue of consistency. Is a zombie motivated by hunger? The desire to kill? Both? Neither? However one answers this (and I think there are a number of perfectly acceptable answers), the core rule is that one should be consistent with the decision. If a zombie is mindlessly seeking flesh to eat, perhaps the zombie should eat whatever flesh it can find, even if it will inevitably take a beating from remaining survivors while beginning its feast. If a zombie is instinctually (or otherwise) aware of the threat posed by the fallen meal’s comrades, perhaps it should first ensure that it can eat its fill in peace by attacking the other survivors. This important dynamic will determine, to a pretty important extent, how survivors will interact with the zombies they encounter, and whether or not they might be able to use their less fortunate comrades (or other creatures, such as the horse in The Walking Dead) as meat shields.

Rule #4: Articulate How Survivor-to-Zombie Transformation Occurs

It’s impossible to talk about zombie-movie rules without touching on this one. After all, the transformation of survivors into one of the “infected” is one of more terrifying parts of zombie movies, for it pits former comrades-in-arms against now mindless and flesh-hungry zombies with familiar faces.

But in order to pull this off, you have to be articulate about how this transformation occurs. It is viral? Does it take a bite? A scratch? A certain depth of bite? In order to really commiserate with the plight of the survivors, you have to know what they–and you–should be guarding against as they inevitably engage their zombies nemesis in battle.

Yet equally important is defining precisely how quickly this transformation takes place. Does it take a day for a bitten survivor to turn full-on zombie? A minute? Two-weeks? Or is it random? Whatever the case is, be consistent with it. So if the transformation has a random duration, don’t have all your bitten survivors transform within 5 minutes. If you need for it to happen in 5 minutes, make it 5 minutes. If not, then stick with your premise.

Finally, related to this is the subject of possible cures for those who are bitten/scratched/whatever. Can the spread of the infection from the spot of invasion be stopped through antiseptic? Amputation? If such things are possible, let us know the rationale. And if survivors randomly–but futilely–amputate limbs and appendages in the vain hope of stopping the transformation, that’s cool too

Rule #5: Don’t Get Too Crazy with Explanations

If there is one criticism I have of Night of the Living Dead, it is that so much time is given to walking through the explanation of how the outbreak of “mass homicides” started. While I think it’s still more or less effectively done through the tension-laden atmosphere of the huddled survivors listening to the radio and watching the TV (all the while surrounded by a horde of zombies just outside), it still seems like a little too much.

Keep in mind that the real appeal of zombie movies is not how the outbreak occurred, or even how (or if) it can be resolved. Zombie movies–the good ones at least–keep people watching because they are stories of survival (even if it’s only temporary!) against ridiculous odds. With this in mind, it’s not terribly important to develop an involved description of why this is happening. Some of the more interesting stories–like The Horde–don’t give ANY explanation. Characters are simply thrown into a full-on zombie invasion and have to deal with figuring out how to survive. Kind of like what would probably happen if such a thing ever really did occur…

But above all, don’t let the explanation, or the proposed resolution, drive the story. If the primary focus of the survivors is on figuring out how this zombie apocalypse happened, or how they can stop it, you’re not watching a zombie flick. Why? Because in good zombie movies, survivors spend their time trying to survive. If they have time to think about possible resolutions, then you’ve gotten yourself into a different kind of movie.

Rule #6: Leave a Light at the End of the Tunnel…Even if it’s a Train-shaped Zombie

Let’s face facts: most zombie movies end with everyone dead. That’s kind of how zombie apocalypses go. Sure, the survivors will last a few hours, days or longer, but eventually the relentless horde catches up to them, catches them off guard, and reaps their delicious rewards.

But despite this dismal expectation that I’m sure everyone assumes when launching into a zombie film, the story should at least hold out hope of the survivors somehow pulling through. While we know that they will probably not survive, there is something about the hope of survival–even in the face of inevitable doom–that makes for a compelling story. If you take away this sliver of hope, however, then there’s nothing left but a hack-fest. Hope your special effects are good, because such a hope-less movie will be otherwise incapable of creating any emotional connection with the audience.

Rule #7: Rambo and Zombies Do Not Mix

You’ve seen the zombie movies where there’s one central character whose guns never miss, whose fists are seemingly wrought of iron, and who is incapable of suffering even the slightest scratch, right? Chances are, those zombies movies were terrible. This is because good zombie movies are not built around nearly super-human heroes who take a zombie apocalypse in stride. Rather, the real connection of a zombie movie with the audience lies in the painfully normal-ness of the people who are thrust into such dire tests of survival. These are the more compelling stories, simply because we can identify with such people, with their weaknesses, with their mistakes, and with their fear.

And let’s face it: if a survivor does not have fear in the face of such a terrifying enemy, they are probably more zombie than human. Or they’ve been through this before, in which case you’re watching a sequel. But the real connection from survivor to movie watcher occurs when the survivors struggle to make sense of what’s going on around them, all while trying desperately to survive and make sense of the distorted reality into which they’ve been so violently flung.

So what’s the best way to prevent a Rambo from developing during the course of your zombie movie? The answer is simple: randomly kill off characters, even if they might seem to be central to the cohesion of the survivors’ group (or your movie’s plot). Such random succumbing to the relentless onslaught of the zombie horde–while perhaps a bit unnerving–feels a lot more realistic. Zombies, after all, don’t care what your name is. They only care that you are delicious.

Conclusion

This is by no means an exhaustive list of my zombie movie rules. In the coming weeks, I’ll be adding more to the list, so stay tuned. And in the meantime, leave a comment or two, and let me know which rules you think are most important or most ridiculous. And of course, feel free to post any rules that you think should be added.

I could continue on in a sappy vein, but I thought I’d share a “Top Ten” (or so) of the very best reasons to be married to Brooke.

1. She’s hot
2. She wrangles will phone bills, car payments, and all the other fiscal responsibilities that would be left undone if I were left to myself
3. She’s a great mother to our wonderful daughter
4. She consistently takes care of the laundry
5. She is hilarious, and is patient with my feeble (read failed) attempts at the same
6. She doesn’t let me mope, and calls me on it when I try to pretend that I’m not bothered about something!
7. She has a very positive outlook on the future for our lives, and motivates me (or drags me, when needed!) to get the best out of it
8. She’s extremely empathetic, and is able to comfort me and lift my spirits when I’m sad, sick, hurt, and everything in between
9. She’s a constant inspiration for me to be a better husband and father.  Yes, I know it’s slow work (painfully slow, I suspect), but I’m trying, I promise!!!
10. Sharing life with her makes me feel complete and satisfied–no matter what comes and goes in life, being together is more than enough for me

Bonus #11:  She has a great family that is fun to be around and supports us through the ups and downs in life!

Brooke, I love you very much!  Happy 8th, and here’s to the next 8!

While you’re waiting, why not check out the season premier of Psych?

First, the Bad

The biggest downside of the upgrade is that the new OS puts a severe beat down on the battery life.  Before the upgrade, I used to be able to listen to Pandora all day at work, make a few calls, and surf around on my phone while watching TV…on one battery charge.  Now, however, my battery life is at least halved, if not more.  If I start Pandora first thing at work, I’ll be getting down into the 30% range by late afternoon, necessitating an early evening charge.  *Sigh*

A few other disappointments:

• Random buggy-ness: I’ve noticed that apps will randomly crash without warning
• Multi-tasking management is kinda clunky–way too many double-clicks and holds to end a program (should give you the option when normally closing, me thinks…)
• Camera “zoom” upgrade is a joke.  It’s exactly what you’d expect, and exactly what every app out there already did: make crappy, low megapixel pictures look even worse.

Now, the Good

While these are fairly serious issues, there are some definitely cool features to iOS4 that I think are worth the negatives.

First, while multitasking does hate batteries, it is really, really nice.  As I mentioned above, the management of it could be more intuitive, but on the whole it’s awesome.  I love not having to re-open app after app just because I need to check the spelling of something in Safari real quick.

Another small, but super-cool feature is that apps like Pandora and Audio Books are integrated into the iPod controls when running.  Therefore, if you have a nifty pair of ear buds with mini-player controls on the wires like I do, you can start/stop Pandora or your favorite audio book without having to unlock, open the app, and stop it.  I absolutely love this feature, and it’s almost worth every negative that iOS4 brings.

Lastly, I really appreciate the new email features.  With my job, I often need to have my Exchange account handy, but hate having to switch back and forth between accounts just to check my new personal email.  With iOS4, accounts can be seen together, but managed separately–plus, related messages are threaded (as in Gmail), which helps cut down on the visual clutter.

Overall: Worth It

As with anything, the rollout of software to legacy devices that is clearly designed for better hardware comes at a price.  However, given the benefits that iOS4 brings to my 3Gs, I think I can handle a few extra battery charges.

I was fortunate enough to be able to see Touchdown Jesus 6 days before this transpired.  It will be missed (probably not…).

Before:

After:

To start off, let me make this clear. BP (and other contractors involved) is certainly responsible for great negligence and sheer incompetence. They should be held responsible for their role in this disaster, and I personally hope that they are made to help for years to come in cleanup and restoration efforts.

However, before we begin erecting soapboxes against oil companies, let’s not forget our own culpability. Sure, BP was negligent–perhaps criminally so. But what caused this? Greed? Sure. Oil companies are out to make money, and they–like everyone else–want to make as much of it as they can. But what drives their profits? Do they make money simply from the pure act of extracting crude from beneath the earth? No. They make money by fulfilling a need for petroleum. And currently in the West (and now the developing world), that need is thoroughly insatiable.

In the West, we want oil (well, and everything else…) in massive quantities. We want it now. And we want it cheap. Couple this with the capitalistic imperative for profits, and it’s not surprising that we find shoddy construction, poor safety mechanisms, and–ultimately–engineering failures leading to calamity. It’s the same reason cars are sent off onto the road with flawed acceleration systems, and why our children’s toys have lead (and who-knows-what-else) in them.

And yet the Western consumer turns a blind eye to such realities. We prefer to don the cloak of self-righteous indignation and point the finger at the “evil corporations”. Yes, these corporations are probably evil. But they are not evil in a vacuum. Rather, they are sating the appetites of the very ones who now self-righteously condemn them. Yet, given enough time, our plastic indignation will fade, and we will all once again join this evil in the bed we have been making for ourselves for years.

And lest we deceive ourselves, the silver bullet in all of this is not necessarily more regulation. While such would certainly aid in preventing the same kind of thing from happening again (after all, don’t we generally regulate stuff that’s already happened, not something that *could* happen…), it’s as effective as putting a band-aid on a broken arm: it has the appearance of solving the problem while leaving the underlying malady completely untouched. No, if we really want this sort of thing to stop happening, the West will have to fundamentally change its mentality toward consumption. Until our demand from corporations ceases to be “big, cheap, now“, we will find that runaway cars, toxic toys, and ruined gulfs are something we will never be rid of. Until we turn the self-righteous indignation and pointed fingers in on ourselves, we’ve all got oil on our hands.