My buddy made an interesting post about the perception of “straight acting” in the gay community. It just goes to show how every group has its own prejudices.

One thing I want to comment on, his comparison between “straight acting” and “banana”:

This is analogous to referring to an Asian person as a “banana” (which doesn’t seem to carry the same negative connotations).

This isn’t quite accurate. The term “banana” is not as neutral as my friend makes it out to be. Personally, I don’t take offense at being called a banana, but the whole concept of an Asian person acting white can be the cause of some friction. My banana status is ambiguous enough that sometimes I’ve been able to listen in at conversations between parents of more full-fledged bananas, and I can tell, it’s really something that they have strong feelings about. They sincerely wish that their kids were “more Chinese.” In my own family, there’s never been outright unhappiness about the issue, but I can occasionally sense an air of passive disapproval. (We don’t call it “banana” in Cantonese, there’s another term for it that I won’t even attempt a translation of… it’s some shit about bamboo or something.)

And I can only guess what FOBs think about bananas. I wouldn’t know, because I stay away from those people as much as I can…

Read more…

Those who know me know that I don’t like The Da Vinci Code. I’ve always maintained that I find the subject matter interesting, but the ridiculous plot and poor writing completely cancel that out. After recently seeing the movie, I have been able to better crystallize my criticisms of the story; i.e. it’s much easier to see the crap when it’s all condensed together in a short time frame.

One major annoyance that I had with the plot was the abundance of deus ex machina moments. These are moments in a story where the characters seem to be in a hopeless situation, but then something completely unexpected or unrealistic comes along to bail them out of it. This kind of plot device is okay if used in moderation, but it happens way too many times in Da Vinci Code. To wit:

(Spoilers ahead… although the spoilers basically amount to: they don’t die.)

• Robert and Sophie are trapped in an armoured truck. A villain is pointing a gun at them. Instead of just shooting them, the villain decides to close the door of the truck, right onto a bullet shell casing that Robert had just happened to kick into the doorway. The door bounces back and the villain comically bangs his head on it. Yes, yes, I know in the book some explanation is given as to why he pushed the shell casing into the doorway… but really, I’m not going to go and read it again.

• Robert and Sophie are standing in some church. A villain is pointing a gun at them. Suddenly, a dove flies by and distracts the villain, who then proceeds to forget how to shoot a gun. He fires and misses. A dove flies by! What is this, a John Woo movie?

• Ian McKellan is sitting in his house. A villain (Silas the crazy monk) is pointing a gun at him. He grabs his crutches and swings. Incredibly, Silas, who we have just seen killing a nun with a single, well-timed and ruthless strike, fails to react fast enough to shoot Ian McKellan at point blank range. I would expect Jackie Chan to be able to pull a move like that off, but Ian McKellan? And this isn’t Gandalf Ian McKellan. Or Magneto Ian McKellan. It’s crippled scholar Ian McKellan!

And that’s all I have to say about that.

During my recent trip to Cuba, I had the opportunity to observe the mysterious culture of the British people… actually, it’s more like, I had the opportunity to be completely confused by what they were talking about.

I was sitting on a catamaran at the time, on a boat tour around some of the coral reefs near the island. A small boat is the perfect place for eavesdropping, as you can’t help but overhear conversations in such a small space. Most of the other tourists on the boat were British, and one particular retirement-age couple were talking to the captain of the boat, a local Cuban man. They said to him, “Has anyone ever told you that you look like baba skins?”

Baba skins?? Some sort of English culinary item? Like potato skins? I don’t care how delicious it is, but I wouldn’t want anyone telling me I look like a plate of food.

”I’m not familiar with him. I like Rowan Atkinson, though, he is also British,” said the boat captain.

Okay, so it must be a British comedian or entertainer of some sort, as yet unknown in North America. Maybe “Baba Skins” is a goofy stage name, like Carrot Top. (Still thinking food, here.)

The British couple tried to clarify. “He was in that Jennifer Lopez movie… Maid In Manhattan.”

Hmm… haven’t seen that one.

”He was also in that cartoon… what was it called? Roger Rabbit!”

Ah! BOB HOSKINS! Amazingly, the boat captain actually agreed: “Oh, yes, I do look like him!”

The funny thing is, he didn’t even look like Bob Hoskins… he looked more like Phil Collins.

You hear a lot of news reporters and journalists on TV and radio referring to website URLs these days. I have noticed, not without ire, that many of them make the mistake of saying “backslash” when they really mean “slash”, e.g. “Visit our site at http-colon-backslash-backslash www-dot-ctv-dot-ca backslash news.”

I can only imagine the media personality in her youth, back in the 80’s, perhaps working a lowly office job before she got her first reporter gig, running into an unpleasant DOS geek system administrator:

Pre-media personality: “Can you help me with this? I saved the file to C colon slash documents, but I can’t open it anymore…”

DOS geek system administrator: “It’s backslash, you idiot! C colon backslash! Don’t you know how to use a computer?!”

The emotional trauma of being yelled at by a scruffy, heavy-set man has undoubtedly stayed with our media personality all these years, and now she subconsciously overcompensates every time she sees a slash. That is, until this happens:

Media personality: “Can you help me with this? I want to put up a link for http-colon-backslash-backslash microsoft dot com backslash windows to this story I did on software obsolescence…”

Web geek system administrator: “It’s slash, you idiot! Don’t you know how to use the Internet?!”

Emotional Trauma 2.0

Read more…

So the big announcement by Google at CES was the release of Google Pack. (Actually, it wasn’t. The real big announcement was the Google Video Store, but that’s not out yet… and besides, I don’t have anything to complain about with that.)

That said, the Google Pack is the first time I’ve been disappointed with something Google has done. First of all, it’s not a product at all… it’s just an installer. There’s nothing here that I can’t download and install myself (e.g. Firefox, Acrobat Reader), but they’re hyping it like it’s revolutionizing the desktop experience.

What I disliked about the Pack is that it gives you no control over what you’re installing. You download the executable, run it, and the next thing you know, the thing is downloading 50+ Megs of software and installing it. There is apparently a way to configure what gets installed, as explained on the About page:

Do I have to install all the software in the Google Pack?
While we believe you’ll find all of the software in the Google Pack useful, you’re welcome to install as much or as little as you’d like. To customize your installation package, please click the “Add or remove software” link under the download button on the Google Pack homepage. On the Customize page, simply uncheck the box next to any program you’d prefer not to install and click the “Continue” button to complete the installation process.

I honestly didn’t see the link under the download button when I downloaded it, and there’s no excuse for not reading carefully before downloading, but this is the kind of thing that you would expect from the RealPlayer installer (a checkbox saying “Do you not want to not install the RealPlayer Message Centre?”). Configuring an installation before you download it is completely counterintuitive to what we expect from every other application out there.

I’m willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt on this one—maybe they felt that the average user would prefer to have a one-click installation—but if I see this kind of trickery from them again… I’ll… uh… start using MSN Search!

There’s been some controversy over Wikipedia lately, and it takes the form of a lawsuit against the online encyclopedia. Someone has started a website at WikipediaClassAction.org (update 2021/12/30: this link has been disabled because it now leads to an adult site), which plans to file a lawsuit against Wikipedia, on the basis that there is harmful and inaccurate information in some Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia is well known for being an open encyclopedia, i.e. anyone can edit the articles. The idea is that for any given topic, someone in the world has the knowledge to be able to write about it. If this person posts some erroneous information (either intentionally or not), then someone else in the world will have the knowledge to correct it. In my experience, this model works, and Wikipedia has become one of my favourite sources of information. If something in an article seems controversial or somehow “not right” to me, a quick look at the discussion page for the article will show that the community is aware of the potential issues and is working to amend the entry.

There is no doubt that Wikipedia will never be 100% accurate at all times. The fact that it’s a collaborative effort necessarily implies that any information posted can evolve. Also, differences between one author’s perspective of a certain topic and another’s are bound to arise. The point is that it’s open for everyone to discuss and decide on an article’s final content cooperatively. I believe that when it comes to information, a large open community has more to offer than a single “authoritative” source, even if it means the occasional error or bug.

This lawsuit was sparked in part by an incident involving the biographical entry of John Seigenthaler Sr. Someone posted false information (apparently as a joke) implying that Seigenthaler had been involved in JFK’s assassination. The lawsuit claims that because of Wikipedia’s open nature, such misinformation is more likely to be spread. The ironic part of it is, as soon as the story came out, it was loudly discussed, and much attention was brought to that particular article. It has since been fixed, and in fact, there is now another article explaining the whole situation. Doesn’t this show the openness of the system actually serves to increase its accuracy? People will make false statements, through all kinds of media, whether they are open to the public or not. What’s worse, a self-correcting system such as Wikipedia, where information becomes fact only when agreed upon by everyone? Or supposedly authorative sources (e.g. the news media) which routinely present opinions as fact?

I fear that this lawsuit might actually have some success. They’ll never be able to shut down Wikipedia (at least, I certainly hope not), but they might succeed in forcing them to do something stupid like dropping the “pedia” from the name, just because it’s “misleading.” No matter what happens, I’ll continue to use and support the Wikipedia project.

Ring, ring

“Hello?”

“Hello, may I speak with Albert Choi, please?”

“Yes, speaki…”

“Good evening, Mr. Choi, I’m calling from MBNA to tell you about our credit card offer for students…”

“Uh, well, actually…”

”…this student card offers a low interest rate, no annual fee, and many other features. We have your address as ******, Mississauga, Ontario, is this correct?”

“Actually, I’m not a student anymore, I’ve recently graduated…”

“That’s not a problem, sir. Our card has many features, it can help you around the house, do some cleaning, some vacuuming…”

“Hello? I actually already have an MBNA card.”

“That’s not a problem, this card is loaded with features, you can play MP3’s, download movies…”

“No, I don’t…”

”…with this card, you can reduce gang violence and inner-city homelessness…”

“No thank you, bye.”

”…this credit card can cure cancer! Solve world hunger!”

“Good-bye.”

Click

Evidence of John Lennon’s god-like power: my iPod has played his songs more frequently over the past couple days (since December 8, the anniversary of his death). The spirit of John Lennon permeates all portable electronic music playing devices.