It's 7:08 AM, and I just finished my 30 minute power point presentation for the 8:30 class.

Time to have some breakfast and kick some ass.

Considering that I only work twice a week and have class one day per week (on a Saturday) I thought I'd have a lot more time to blog, since I actually have quite a bit to blog about.  But man, this class is taking up so much of my time.  Not necessarily in a bad way, but it's just exhausting to have to do a thirty minute presentation each weekend based on a twenty page case.  Understanding the case isn't hard-- but making a presentation that won't bore your classmates and professor shitless takes a whole lot of tweaking.

Anyways, time to get a move on.  Next weekend is the last class before the final exam, so we're almost there...

The day Skynet comes online, one of the first things on their hitlist will be the Victorian Parliament for it's anti-cyber laws.

I picked up a subscription to Playstation Network Plus about a week ago, and I think it was a pretty good deal.

The first thing I picked up was Batman: Arkham City.  It cost me about 15$, since I was buying from the North American store-- huge difference, because video game prices are absolutely gouged in Australia.  Arkham City still retails for at least 60$.

The original game, Arkham Asylum, impressed me when it came out because it really felt like you were playing the Batman of the comics in a way that Christian Bale couldn't on screen.  In Arkham City, combat is way better.  It's done with an attention to detail and playability that I often see American rooted games (especially things running the Unreal engine) falling flat on their faces with.

I should point out that I'm very critical of martial arts choreography.  If you spend your childhood growing up watching Jackie Chan and Jet Li films, putting a white guy in a batsuit and making him talk like he has throat cancer and making him do some 'gritty' boxing is not going to impress me.  Especially when you're dealing with Batman-- I mean, for god's sake-- he's BATMAN.  He's the world's greatest detective, and he's mastered like every martial art in the world.  Christian Bale can't even kick higher than the waist.

It's not that I didn't like that new Batman movies-- like any comic book reader, I usually enjoy a silver screen representation because it somehow makes my hobies more mainstream and relatable to the everyday person who doesn't know what he's missing.

However, the Akrham City portrayal of Batman is much better.  This Batman does his detective work in the field (and not just by plugging things into the bat computer, as Bale does).  He goes out and shakes down thugs on the street for information.  He searches vents, sewers, offices, rooftops, etc for clues-- not even answers, just clues-- as to how things fit together.  This Batman is willing to get down and dirty-- not just fighting epic one-on-ones against special thugs, or driving around the city all day or whatever.

And when it comes to fighting? Man.  While a Street Fighter game is still my pick for a one-on-one, Arkham City is my pick for one-on-twenty.  Really-- the gameplay allows for a really full and engrossing experience where Batman literally strolls into a room of thugs with bare hands, guns, knives, katanas, baseball bats, cattleprods, rifles... and you can basically take take them all down and feel like a total badass doing it, seamlessly using varitions of punches, kicks, elbows, batarangs, grappling hooks, cartwheels, sommersaults,  freeze grenades, headbutts, throws, joint locks... and there are a bunch of surprise techniques, like weapon distructions (dismantling somebody's gun, or breaking his baseball bat over your knee) and context sensitive counters (like smashing two thugs heads into eachother when they try to attack you).

I guess that Batman, like Neo, generally feel too "stiff" in comparison.  They work pretty well from a boxing sort of posture, but you never see any lower body action (for instance-- generally, they have very slow and terrible footwork) and you definitely don't see any believable acrobatics (flips and such).

I was a bit surprised that the world engine of Arkham Asylum has gone "open" in the trend of GTA (or perhaps, more accurately, Prototype).  But it does work.  I felt that the openness of the world detracted from the importance of the main story though.  The main story didn't feel as strong as the first game, although it did have some twists.  This game was way more about sidequests and having fun fighting and collecting Riddler trophies than it was about a main arc.

All in all though, I would say it's a highly recommendable game.

I tried some retro stuff with [CM]-- the Scott Pilgrim game and Double Dragon: Neon.  Basically? If you liked Double Dragon games back in the 90s, you will get nothing more and nothing less.  Gameplay is pretty much the same with a few additions.  It's fun for shits and giggles, but someone who didn't play the originals is likely to find the game painfully cumbersome.  It goes with the territory of really unforgiving gameplay controls and hit detection exploits  of the 90s.

Wreck -It Ralph (movie):

For a gamer growing up in the 90s, even casual ones, this is a great movie.  It's probably the movie I'd recommend most of the last few months.

Muvu Alternative: Total Eclipse (anime):

It started off really interesting and strong, got worse, and ended terribly.  Avoid this one at all costs.

Kenshin (Japanese Movie):

Based on the hit manga/anime, this movie came out at the end of 2012 and is terrible.  Avoid at all costs.  I've both read and watched all of the original Kenshin.  While I thought the entire second story arc was kind of lame, I thought the series redeemed itself with the OVAs.  However, this movie is just bad-- it tries to do too much and acommplishes too little in one movie.  There isn't enough character development, and the acting is terrible!  Soundtrack? Awful as well.

Girls and Panzer (Anime):

Very lighthearted random fun.  Nothing to get addicted to, but it's an original idea.  Not sure where this series is going yet.

Game of Thrones (Television Series):

Just finished season 1, and started going into season 2.  It's... interesting.  I wouldn't say I love the series or that I must know what happens next, but I can see from the violence, the costumes, the European accents, nudity, etc makes people think it's great.  My main reason for thinking that it's not great is because there is no progress.  As in-- people start off at a certain state-- and they spend a lot of time becoming more and more miserable. I mean, people suffer more and more and more, more people get killed, people become more hostile... and given the current direction of things, I don't really know who I want to win. Basically, from the way things are going, I don't see any outcomes that I would like.  Ideally, I'd like the little girl to grow up and just kill everyone, but I don't know if that's possible.  So I'm not sure I need to see more.

Suits (Television Series):

Lots of fun.  Season 2 was better than Season 1, although I think in real life, it'd be impossible to work at a company like that.  It's just way too hostile!  However, their trials and tribulations are my entertainment.

Downton Abbey (Television Series):

I'm not too into this, but CM loves it. It's got a certain charm to it, and the costumes and stuff are really nice.  The reason I'm not into it isn't because the series is badly written-- I just don't like people who are really rich and know it, and worry about their rich problems.  In that respect, the series is pretty well crafted in showing the differences in personalities and problems of different classes.  It's historically very interesting, especially since I"ve actually visited a manor in Virginia at some point.

Soul Eater (Manga)

Looks promising... I like the art style.  It's very hip.  I'm not very far into it yet, but it seems quite light hearted and character driven.

Witch Hunter (Manga)

Also looks promising-- reminds me very much of D.Gray Man, but less serious.  Similar to Soul Eater.

Abraham Linchon: Vampire Hunter (Movie)

Not worth seeing in theatre.  It has a few really fun action sequences (which clearly show that it's by the same director as Wanted) but aside from those fight scenes, the rest of the movie is quite painful except for hardcore B-Movie fanatics.

Magic Mike (Movie)

Surprisingly, better than I thought.  If this movie had come out in the 90s around the time of Breakfast Club type movies, this would have been a huge hit.  As it stands, the presentation style (and the acting) for this movie today is a bit outdated for today.  Watch it on DVD if you like beefcakes.  Personally, I just have this compulsion to watch Matthew McConohugh in any movie he shows up in. I don't know why-- he's usually pretty sleazy, and his role as head stripper here doesn't change that.

Tropic Thunder (Movie)

This is a bit older, but I saw it again with [Campbell] and [CM], and it's STILL GOOD.

[CM] and I went on a vacation for about a week to Gold Coast, Australia.  For those of you reading from North America, basically, think Orlando, Florida.  Same basic idea.  Slightly different sand, different accents, but for the most part, that's a pretty comparable picture.

We stayed in an area called Surfer's Paradise.  As the name suggests, you could do surfing!  Neither of us tried it.  I'm not sure how interested CM is, but for me, learning to swim properly might be something to take care of first.

The interesting thing about Gold Coast is that there are two competing theme park groups.  Just as Florida's economy is in the pocket of DIsney and Universal Studios, Gold Coast is under the reign of Dreamworks and Warner Brothers.

Which is a very interesting change of pace.  I felt that Disney parks (I've been to Florida, California, and HK) all have a more complete sense of "maintaining the magic."  As theme parks, they really try hard to maintain a consistent illusion.

The Warner Bros park (Movieland) tried to do the same, but you could see that the areas were a bit more disconnected than at a Disney park.  The Dreamworks park (Dreamworld) had even less theme to it, and was just a collection of different rides.

The nice thing though is the WB and Dreamworks parks had much more mature rides-- less shows and singing, and more rollercoasters that are faster and higher.  My favourite is the Superman: Escape ride, which, as CM pointed out, not only had different physics from other rollercoasters, but it even had a storyline to it.

I'm actually terrified of heights, and truth be told, I was often wimpering everytime I pulled the harnesses down on me.  However, going on vacation with CM has this habit of making me do things I wouldn't normally do, and I come out a bit better for it.  She's not afraid of any of these rides-- and if she is, she doesn't care enough to avoid them. So I get on them too, and I endure, somehow!

In the end, I was actually getting a bit used to them, inasamuch as one can grow accustomed to the sensation that my testicles are going to fall everytime we hit a few seconds of freefall hangtime.  I must grudgingly admit: it was fun!

It was really good to have a pure vacation, really away from all the work.  It was good to not have to check my email, or even turn on my cellphone.  It was nice to have air conditioning on all the time, and not worry about making a mess.

It was also nice to have a pancake specialist restaurant near the hotel-- it's really hard to find or make pancakes in Sydney for some reason.

It's all very Catcher in the Rye and very teen angst to be fed up of "fake people," but the truth is, a lot of the way society works is based on group charades.  Go to any lawschool or courtroom, and you'll see that law isn't necessarily about substance-- it's about appearances and presentation.  Sure, having real substance does help-- but you can get away with a lot just by puffing up, smiling, pointing fingers, and talking loudly.

I'm on a much needed week long getaway with CM, in Gold Coast, Australia. Updates upon my return.

Last week there was a Christmas party for the law firm I work for.  It was a really good dinner, complete with a myster Kris Kringle gift exchange.  I got a snazzy pair of Logitech noise-cancelling earbuds, which is pretty good considering that the max for gifts was $20 AUS.  It was a two stage event-- we started off at a Bavarian pub, and then worked our way to a fancy restaurant.

I think that one of my colleagues may have had too much to drink.  We were both sitting at the same table as one of the senior partners (and his wife, who is the office manager) and one of the junior partners.  My colleague basically has a "junior" position in the firm, more or less the same as me.  Anyway, the problem was that at some point she started getting a bit confrontational with the junior partner in charge of our work-- and proceeded to call her assignment a lousy, boring assignment.  Then she said, "jokingly," that she hated the junior partner.

Umm.

The junior partner tried to deflect it with a joke by saying that usually people figure that out within 3 hours, let alone 3 weeks (which is how long we've been working for him).  But she didn't let it go, and for the rest of the evening just kept taking stabs at him for how much she thought her work was unfairly boring.

"[Jinryu]'s project is so more interesting!  Why can't I do something like that?"

Err... WHAT.  Why are you dragging me into this??

Word of advice to everyone: drink responsibly at your company party.

Otherwise, you might end up like that Japanese guy in Heroes who is trying to kill jump off a building because of what he did last year.

"I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me."

[CM] sent me this link, which was a very interesting read in the context of the recent shooting.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

I'm in a summer class (summer in Australia now) called Global Issues in Competition Law & Policy.  I have to present a different 30 minute presentation every week for three weeks as part of the class requirements.  However, getting the work done is proving a bit troublesome, because my two groupmates can't seem to get their act  together.

I don't know if I unequivocably hate group work.  I just hate working with groups who don't know how to work as teams.  For example, my two group mates often take days to respond to emails, and not only don't pick up their phones, but don't follow up on voicemails.

I'm not sure where one aquires those kinds of skills though.  I rather suspect that you simply have to spend time in the workforce, and work under a serious manager who kicks the shit out of you if you ignore his communications.  I think I've been lucky in that sense-- most of my past employment has always been in very tightly knit environments with people who either have a personal stake in the business, or who have been working those positions long enough that they really have a standard operating procedure for everything.  As a result of working in those situations, I think I have pretty good "communications etiquette."

I think that communications etiquette is essential to teamwork.  Yet somehow, people overlook it.

This year, I'm the IT Director for the university's Law Society.  It's actually a pretty cutting edge position because I have to basically build several projects from the ground up-- there's no precedent for a  lot of the things I have to do.  The previous person who did the job though, it's part of his job to explain just how procedures worked last year.  So, I've been trying to chase him down on skype and by emails to get a sitrep from him about server maintenance and all that.  But the guy just keeps dodging!  What. The. Fuck.

So, let me tell you a basic principle of communication etiquette.  The first thing is: communicate.

That sounds like a no brainer, but I know you know plenty of people who break this cardinal rule: they just don't get back to you.

When  you get a message addressed to you in your official capacity as a holder of a certain position within a company, your can decide to:

• Take care of it right now;
• Take care of it later;
• Delegate it / Refer it to someone else; or
• Refuse it.

No  matter which one of these options you chose, you must RESPOND to the sender within a reasonable amount of time to let them know what you're going to do.

Is the person making a request that you have to make a decision on?  If there is a question mark ANYWHERE in the email, that's usually a pretty strong hint that you probably need to respond.

That said, when you write a message requesting something, make it concise and precise.  Give the important details, and then clearly state your request / question.  Don't ask ambiguous rhetorical questions-- this isn't you sheepishly trying to hint that you want to be more than friends, this is you trying to get shit done. Get to the freaking point.  It helps to separate each item of your request into background information and the request itself.

If someone outlines what they want very clearly to you, and you receive requests, it's decision time.  Address every part of the request one at a time.  Do not simply respond to some of them, or respond to questions that the person did not ask.  If you do,  you should be dragged out into the street and shot.

You might think it's fine to just leave someone hanging because you might eventually run into that person in the hallway, and you can talk about it then.  But it really makes a huge difference if you just take 10 seconds to say "we'll talk about this on Thursday" or whatever.  Know what the difference is?  The person who asked for your help won't think you're a douchebag.  If something is addressed to you and is making a request, you SHOULD respond to it.