Infinity in the Palm of My Hand

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Wow!

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/13.04/robot.html

Donate whatever amount you can to help these guys get a college education.

Super super super cool...

The New Batman Begins Trailer

Can't wait...just hope the awesome tralier doesn't jinx it for me ala Sin City.

Friday, April 22, 2005

How much our politicians care about our lives...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1085148.cms

Sunday, April 17, 2005

And I am...

lancelot
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who!


What Monty Python Character are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine

The obsession with winning at all costs is not something that the IBM invented and forced Kasparov to follow. Its always been integral to Kasparov's way of playing. To see this, one only has to go back to the Kasparov-Anand match of 1995, when Kasparov, sensing defeat for the first time in his career, used everything he could find in his arsenal to intimidate Anand. Banging doors and stomping around the room when his opponent was planning a move was a routine part of Kasparov's gameplay. Chess was never just chess for Kasparov, it would always extend into playing mind games with his opponent. For Mr. Jayanti to whine about IBM playing "hardball psychologically", and then to try and build a conspiracy theory around it is puerile and smacks of celebrity worship. Whatever Kasparov's misfortunes may have been in the wake of his defeat, they were pretty much his own creation. His fixation with winning no matter what it took was the only reason he was affected so much. A better man would have walked away from the defeat mostly unaffected. If all it took to break Mr. Kasparov's "architecture of consciousness" was one defeat, then it really wasn't such a beautiful thing, was it? Kasparov is not a "victim", he has not been sinned against by an evil multibillion dollar corporation and he is hardly deserving of any compassion, no matter how hard Mr. Jayanti tries to prove otherwise.

Sin City

I seem to be in a minority here, seeing that I do not think Sin City is really the masterpiece its being made out to be. Yes, the visual style is great with the very effective use of black & white and what not, but its still a bland, boring, drawl of a movie. Although Robert Rodriguez does a good job of bringing the Sin City "graphic novels" to life exactly the way they were visualised, he pretty much stops there. While reading the comics, it was impossible for me to imagine that a movie adaptation could be the very opposite of thrilling. And yet somehow, Mr. Rodriguez manages to achieve just that. After the first half an hour or so, once the excitement of the novel visual style wears off, it becomes a tedious and monotonous exercise in being cool for the sake of it. There is hardly an exhilarating moment in the movie, hardly a moment that emotionally involves you, hardly a moment that makes you feel alive, when it was all so very possible within the material that the comics provide. And on top of that, the intertwining of the three stories comes across as a very lame attempt at being Tarantino-esque. I agree that the visual style is brilliant...it is great to see a comic being adapted for the screen exactly like a comic, especially a comic as ingenious as Sin City. But why not put in a little extra effort and make it atleast somewhat riveting? Its a shame that what could easily have been a "wow" movie ends up being such a disappointing bore in spite of the obvious love Mr. Rodriguez has for the Sin City comics.