Chromebook

As I mentioned earlier, one of my goals is to walk a bit less, and write a bit more.

(It may not have been stated that way, but that's the way I'm thinking about it :)

With that in mind, I decided that I'd like to have a basic laptop that I can throw in a satchel and haul around with me on my walks. Part of the reason I've really started to enjoy walking is that it gives me time to think and gets my thoughts flowing. So in the past year, I've done more than a little bit of draft writing on my phone as I've been out and about... and, honestly, it's a pain in the patootie.  Even with text-to-speech, it's annoying.

Enter the Lenovo N42 Chromebook.

It's light, seems pretty rugged, and weighs in at just a bit under three and a half pounds.  Not a big deal, really.  A few extra pounds will help me work just a wee bit harder as I go, and I'll have the ability to stop and write for a bit along the way.

More importantly, it's cheap.  I like to walk back alleys.  That's where the interesting stuff is.  I've never been hassled, but if I'm going to be carrying around something, I'd rather it be a cheap Chromebook than a Mac Air or something similar.  Plus, being a Chromebook, it's got sync capabilities with Google Drive, so I can write sans network connection then let everything sync up later when I get back to work or home.

The performance is decent. Some things seem to load slowly in Chrome, but for the most part, it's responsive enough.  I'm writing this update on the Chromebook, in fact.  The keyboard layout is slightly different from a Mac (and even a Wintel machine), but I'm not sure how much of that is the underlying OS, and how much is the fat that everything seems to be running under Chrome.

The keyboard itself is absolutely FABULOUS.  It might turn out to be a flimsy piece of junk that breaks after a few weeks of used, but let me tell you, right now it's absolutely wonderful.  I was worried a LOT about the keyboard.  That and the display are the real reason for buying this thing, and a crappy keyboard would make writing a horrible pain.  As it is, I'm barely even noticing it.  They keys are just right - not too clicky, not too soft, not too stiff.  Since this is a 13" laptop, too, my hands actually fit comfortably on the keyboard.

The display is nothing to write home about, but it is perfectly serviceable for doing text editing.  Battery life looks like it's going to be pretty good, too.  I started off plugged in until I got to a full charge, then unplugged to see how well the battery lasts.  It's been about three hours of playing around so far, and the battery meter is telling me I'm at 88% with 11:25 left to go until I run out of power.  That's pretty sweet.

Speaking of playing... the thing that sold me on a Chromebook was the number of available minimalist writing editors available for it.  Anything that will let me do text editing would be fine, to be honest.  My plan is to bang out some drafts, save them to Google Drive, then yank them into Scrivener for organizing, cleanup and editing.  Heck, I could do all that (and have done that in the past, in fact!) as Blogger drafts.  Having something a little more sophisticated than a basic text editor would be nice, though, so I spent the evening installing and trying out a few.

The built-in Text editor is just that.  Looks a lot like Notebook with a little bit more oomph to it.  If you're comfortable with that sort of thing, and are looking for absolutely minimal setup, that's probably all you'd need.  I was interested in finding something just a wee bit more featureful, though.

Caret looks like a great little programming editor.  I've used Sublime Text and Visual Studio Code, and Caret is very similar.  I honestly didn't want a programmer's editor, though.  Don't ask me why.  Maybe because it feels too much like the tools I used day to day for work.  I'm sure I could write in it, of course, but when I pop open something with that look and feel, my mind immediately goes to code.  That's not what I want in this case.

Next in line I was going to try Writer.  I saw a lot of recommendations for it, but it a quick look at some comments about it showed that they use their own servers for storage.  To be very honest, I'm not comfortable with that.  I've had some recent personal experiences  where a change in ownership of a company has made getting backups of archival data difficult.  You can export data if you buy the Pro version, but... you know what?  No. I want something that will save to Google drive.  I've already got my Drive synced to 3-4 different places, so even if Google decides I can't access it anymore, I at least have backups.  I'll stick with that setup, thank you.

I ended up trying another editor called Calmly Writer.  Very nice, minimalist, with just enough configuration options (including white-on-black text mode) that I felt like I could make it just what I wanted without feeling overwhelmed by options.  It has the option to save in a bunch of different formats, including plain text, which is pretty much just what I want.  So I took it for a spin, wrote a few hundred words, then said, "That'll do, pig.  That'll do."

The very last thing I did was install Linux.

Yes, you can install Linux on a Chromebook now, alongside the Chrome OS... or on top of it, if you want to think of it that way. An install of Debian Linux runs in a container on top of Chrome OS, and you can start it just like any other app.  It comes set up with a bunch of the usual suspects, including ssh and vim.  That was completely unexpected, and very nice.  I've got a couple of things I do outside of work to help administer existing web sites for a couple of non-profits, and having the ability to do it from this little Chromebook is really appealing.

So, that's the state of the world.  Happy cheap little rugged Chromebook makes me happy.  Because writing, and Linux.

... but mostly writing.  Which is what I need to be doing now.  Time to take this thing out for an extended trial... :)

The Expanse: Dulcinea

Walter Jon Williams has a few things to say about the new SyFy series, "The Expanse":

I was in Santa Fe last week for the premiere of the first two episodes, which I saw in an actual theater, with popcorn and free booze and TV stars and GRRM and all the goodies you get with a premiere.  And the experience was a double helping of Complete Awesome.  The Expanse is the science fiction series that I, and probably you, have long been waiting for.

For one thing, this series doesn’t condescend to its viewers.  When characters speak in Belter patois, there’s no translator hovering by, there aren’t even subtitles, you just have to go with the scene, and either you get it or you don’t.  You get the political background or you don’t.  You get how the space ships work or you don’t.  The story just happens, it doesn’t stop to give infodumps to the viewers who can’t keep up.  Experienced SF readers should have no problem with any of this.

Honestly? I agree. I watched the first episode of "The Expanse" last week, and... I am hopeful.

Which is saying something, really. This is SyFy we're talking about, after all.

Here's the thing: I've read the series this is based on, and the important thing to remember as you see the spaceships swooping around? This is hard (ish) SF that is primarily character driven. In other words, perfectly suited for a TV series. The world, the politics, the science are all excellent backdrops for the (terrifyingly interesting) lives of the characters.

Assuming they get the characterization right, of course. Keep in mind that in the first episode, we've met a corrupt and cynical Belter detective (Miller), an Earth spacer seemingly allergic to authority and responsibility (Holden), and a UN official condoning torture (Arvarsala). In coming episodes, we will almost certainly meet an amoral sociopath with a history of criminal violence; a genius with a dark history of mass murder; and a political leader who is known as "The Butcher" for his past war crimes.

Note well: these are the good guys. One of the themes of the books are the search for truth as a path to redemption... and the idea that figuring out what they truth is can be hard, if not downright impossible, when nobody is really as good - or as bad - as they seem . The truth of things is often hidden, and sometimes well intentioned people can make horrible choices for what seems like all the right reasons: Loyalty. Honesty. Truth. Justice.

From the looks of it, they're making a good effort with the characters. Establishing the characters will come slowly, though. Part of the limitation that they're working with are the novels themselves. From what I could see in the first episode, they are keeping to the plot of the books fairly tightly.Which is normally a good thing, but...

That's a big but, right there.

The first novel has what are essentially two major plot lines that eventually converge. In the series, they show what appears to be four plot lines, as they seem to be trying to set things up for later and introduce some major characters that don't show up until later on in the books. Which is ok - TV serials are a different medium, after all. There would have to be some adaptations.

It does mean that if you haven't read the books, the first episode can be confusing. Who's that girl on the Scopuli? What's with the blue stuff flying around in the engine room? Who is this Miller guy? Why are you flip flopping between him and the crew on a tramp ice freighter? What's the deal with the Indian woman on earth? Why does everyone on Ceres seem so angry?

Trust me. Stick with it. It all comes together... maybe not quickly, but it will; and in much the same way that four different chunks of uranium might be brought together enthusiastically, the plot lines will give a very satisfying bang when they finally converge. In fact, depending on how closely they adhere to the novels, Marvin the Martian's catchphrase may be quite rightly invoked.

The first episode is online.  Watch it, keep with it. I think - I hope - that it will be as good as it looks.

Fingers crossed.

The Battle of Five Armies

Just returned from taking da goils to see the third installment of the extended film that that the lovely Mrs. Robb refers to as "That Middle-Earth Movie".

Overall, I thought it was the second best in the series - not nearly as good as the first installment, but much better than the second.  I have a new love for Dain of the Iron Hills, and a newfound respect for Galadriel, who shows that she can indeed be as "beautiful and terrible as the Morn!".  The scenes of the dwarven infantry also warmed my heart.  Dwarven shield walls?  Yes, please!

I will also admit to blubbering like a kid when Thorin died. [1] 

What can I say?  I love me some dwarves.

There were a number of ways that the movie could have been improved.  Cutting out the extended "amazing action" sequences, for example.  A couple of quick scenes of awesomeness would have worked much better, IMHO.  John C. Wright will be happy to know that there was at least one point where I was thinking "SHOOT HIM WITH AN ELF ARROW!" - and, wouldn't you know it, he did.  Ah, some common sense at last!

More exposition about how Beorn and the Eagles show up to save the day would have been nice as well.  As, maybe, a mention of why it was the "battle of five armies"?  Just sayin'.  I am eagerly anticipating the director's cut (or, more likely, the fan cut) that turns this movie trilogy into the the two movies that it should have been from the beginning.

Finally, I was surprised to find myself thinking that the love interest between Kili and Tauriel actually worked fairly well, in the context of the movie.  No, it's not canonical... but it was a side plot, not a major part of the film; and it provided some context for character development that was otherwise quite logically lacking in a movie about Guys Hitting Other Guys With Pointy Bits of Metal.

If you've seen the first two, you will definitely want to see the third, if just to come to a sense of closure.  If you're like the lovely Mrs. Robb, though, and think that Elves showing up at Helm's Deep was a grave error, then you'll probably be happiest either catching it as a matinee showing, or waiting to see it on DVD.

[1] Spoilers?  For one of the modern classics of Western literature?  Are you serious?

Epic Movie Rant Is Epic

John C. Wright is not impressed with the second movie in "The Hobbit" trilogy.

I loved the first Hobbit movie and hated, hated, hated the second. It was stupid on every level of stupidity. It is rightly to be called THE DESOLATION OF TOLKIEN.

While I enjoyed "Desolation", I really have to agree with him.  The number or divergences from the actual, you know, story of "The Hobbit" were hardly subtle.  There is a reason that the lovely Mrs. Robb refers to "The Hobbit" as "That Middle-Earth Movie".

Here is a taste to whet your appetite for the whole thing:

Just when I picked myself again off the sticky floor of the theater, blearily wondering where the Hobbit character was after whom this movie was apparently named might be, BAM! The familiar Hammer came down again. This time, it was a scene where Orlando Bloom is standing a zillion feet away from the evil orc bounty hunter Slopgog the Unmentionable or whatever his name is, and he does not shoot him with an elf arrow. 

I sat there, rocking back and forth with my eyes crossed, and through the stream of drool and vitreous humor leaking down my chin I muttered again and again, “Shoot him with an elf arrow. Shoot. Him. With. An. Elf. Arrow. SHOOT HIM WITH AN ELF ARROW! 

But no. No elf arrow was forthcoming.

I have no doubt that "Shoot him with an elf arrow!" will quickly become a family idiom.

Some Comments on Thor: The Dark World

Potential spoilers ahead.  I will try to keep it general, but, y'know.  Schpoilers!

Then again, if the fact that there are fight scenes in the movies are going to spoil Thor : The Dark World for you, there is a good chance you wandered into the wrong theater.

In any case, yinz guys have been warned, n'at.  Onward!

Thor: The Dark World is a touching tale of two men who were caught in a storm which encompassed the whole world.

Hmm.  I pulled that off of a random imdb.com comment, trying to be ironic. Turns out it's a pretty good description of the movie.  The two men in question are, of course, Thor and his brother Loki.  Chris Hemsworth does a great job as Thor, which is to be expected.  As for Tom Hiddleston as Loki... look, can I be honest with you?  Truly, truly honest with you?

By the end of the movie, I was rooting for Loki.

Hiddleston did a great job in the original Thor and again in The Avengers.  In T:TDW, though, he really stepped things up.  It would have been so very easy for him to let Loki come across as just another comic book villain.  Instead, he managed to paint a picture of a very complex character who has his own loyalties, motivations, and desires.  Loyalties that can sometimes make him an ally; motivations that are not always clear; and desires that are more tragic flaws than "evil for evil's sake".

The rest of the cast did an adequate job.  Natalie Portman is a bit meh, particularly when compared to her portrayal of the character of Jane in the first movie.  The other folks in the movie turned in decent, solid performances, though they seemed... more flat.  Not bad, mind you, just not as real as they were in first movie.

A notable exception to that is Stellan Skarsgård.  I have seen some people complain that his depiction of Erik Selvig as an addled nutjob fell flat, the assumption being that his character was intended as comic relief.  Halfway through the movie, I would have agreed... just up until the point where he turns to another character, and says, deadpan, "I've had a god in my head.  I wouldn't recommend it."

Ye-owch.  For me, those two sentences put Erik under a whole new light.  Thor and the Avengers might shake off a fistfight with Loki, but when mere mortals tangle with those same forces, damage will be done, and will take longer to heal... if it ever does.  (Which makes me wonder how well Hawkeye is dealing with his particular instance of having Loki scramble his skull, eh?)  As the Marvel universe movies develop, I sincerely hope we see less of the loony madman from T:TDW, and more of the original Erik Selvig as his character recovers from the events in The Avengers.

Oh, the plot?  Bad guy shows up.  Tries to get his hands on a superweapon that can destroy the Nine Worlds.  Hijinks ensue, things get blown up, redshirts die in interesting ways.  In the end, the good guys stop him, after a really cool fight scene that literally rages across multiple worlds.

I mean, come on.  It's THOR.  What did you expect?

So.  Summary?

Two thumbs up.  Good flick.  Grab some popcorn, come for the fight scenes, stay to root for Loki.

OK, now for some general comments...

I really liked the fact that they took the opportunity in this movie to cement the fact that the Asgardians are not gods.  They have incredible technology, true... but it is technology that is at least understandable, if not yet reproducible by us mere Earthlings.  Along these lines, the scene with Jane in the Soul Forge was particularly good for a chuckle.

After this movie, I find myself wishing we could see Sif, Fandral, Hogun and Volstagg in their own feature film.  I want to see more of Fandral, in particular.  There were more than a couple of scenes in the movie that made me think, "Would I pay money to watch these four fight alien space pirates?  Why, yes.  Yes I would."

The traditional Marvel "sneak peak" in the end credits was... interesting.  There was a definite Star Trek:TOS look and feel going on there.  I don't know if that was accidental or intentional.  Does it imply something about the part that the Collector will play upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy movie?  When we saw Thanos at the end of The Avengers, his role was pretty darn clear: Big Bad.  In contrast, the Collector is a Loki-like character, in that he has his own plans and motivations.  While he is a sometimes opponent of the Avengers, he also has his own history with Thanos, so... yeah.  Somewhere there's a Facebook entry that says, "It's complicated".

Finally... someone in Asgard really needs to talk to Nick Fury and get a loan of some SHIELD advisors to beat some sense into the common Asgardian foot soldier.  Seriously, guys?  Enemy space ship crashes into the freaking palace, slides to a halt within spitting distance of Odin's throne, and... you advance on it with shields and swords?  You're chasing someone back to that same ship, trying to keep them from taking off, and you deal with a single opponent in your way by piling on him in hand to hand combat instead of, say, splitting your forces so you at least have a chance of accomplishing your mission?

I know, I know.  You Asgardians have this whole "Nordic Warrior" motif thing going.  That seems to be working for you, I guess.  Mostly.  Kind of.  I'm just saying that maybe you should look into the concept of things like ranged energy weapons and cover fire.  Oh, and could you at least pretend that you're interested in learning some small squad tactics?  That would be swell.