How I Met Your Mother: What Will Become of Barney and Nora?

Typically, when television shows use romance to enhance the plot, I see it as trite and annoying. But this is not the case with Barney and his new found love Nora (played by the lovely Nazanin Boniadi). In today's episode, Barney has to wear a heart monitor, which will essentially track his heart during his date with Nora. Barney believes that he lied to her about wanting a family, but Lily points out that Barney lied about lying. His heart literally skipped a beat, which, though a very lame joke, made for a very heartwarming moment for Barney. He approached Nora at brunch with her parents and accepted the fact that he wanted everything that she did. Or did he? In a stunning turn, Barney envisions what it could have been, playing out the entire scenario outside of the restaurant. Barney found the person he knew he loved and walked away from her. This is typically when I would be angry at my television. Why is such a great show using such a cliched plot method to forward their episodes? I had a right to be angry because they did the same exact thing with Robin in a will-they-won't-they scenario. But there is something about Barney that makes me root for him whenever he has the chance to actually be in a relationship. I don't know if it is how well Neil Patrick Harris plays Barney Stinson, but I always want him to find true love and I thought that he found it with Nora. But this is a great storyline for Barney and that is why I found this specific plot twist so intriguing. How I Met Your Mother has been extremely good as of late, despite a weak first half of their season. They have been developing their characters very well, especially Marshall (played by Jason Segel) and Barney. Barney will be now dealing with two new people in his life. One will be his father (Jerry Whitaker played by the hilarious John Lithgow) and the other will be Nora. I don't think that this is the last we've seen of Nora. I mean, she works with Robin, so I'm sure we'll meet Nora once again. I think Nora and Barney will end up together because there was so much fanfare leading up to Nora's appearance that I can't believe that she will be a one-off character. Do I think that Nora and Barney will live their happily ever after? I doubt it, but I do think that they will give it a shot. Who knows? Maybe it is their wedding where Ted will meet his future wife and the eponymous mother? But for now, we can at least be thankful that Barney has found someone who he will love, but such a victory is bittersweet for he can not call her his own.

Thoughts On The Oscars

So the Oscars were last night! So here are my thoughts.

About the Hosts...
Am I the only one who thought that James Franco and Anne Hathaway, though very entertaining in their own right, were not that great as hosts? I know Franco has past experience on Saturday Night Live so he is fit to do live television. But he looked stoned the entire time, which led to great entertainment at his expense. Anne Hathaway was ever cheery and overly enthusiastic, but it didn't seem like any of their bits landed (except for that Charlie Sheen dig, classic cross-dressing Franco).

Montages Galore
I have a lot of questions about the montages. I think that some of them were good. The opening montage was respectable, but it definitely will not go down as one of the best in Oscar history. The Auto-Tune was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time ("He Doesn't Even Own A Shirt"). But the biggest one was the Best Picture montage. I know that The King's Speech is a great film (and eventual Oscar Winner), but seriously Academy? You actually scored the entirety of that montage to Colin Firth's speech. There was little doubt beforehand that The King's Speech would win, but that was the cherry on top.

Best Presenter Goes To...
I think that Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. had some good banter, and Downey always is a great presenter (just think back to the Golden Globes). But I have to give this award to Kirk Douglas. His presentation was awkward at first, endearing next, and then just straight up comical. Some great tidbits include: James Franco (you look a lot better out of that cave), Anne Hathaway (Where were actresses like you when I was in films?), Australians (Why do Australians think I'm funny?), and Colin Firth (Look Colin Firth isn't laughing. Because he's British). You know, he was one of the best parts of the Oscars, although he did leave the envelope backstage.

Speaking About Old People
Forget Betty White. We have new old people to love. The best parts of this entire ceremony were the old people. First was James Franco's grandmother, who seemed to jump out of her chair for Marky Mark (no Nana, he's a serious actor now. It's Mark Wahlberg). Then of course you had the hilarious (intentionally?) Kirk Douglas. Then there was David Seidler, who was a self-professed late bloomer. And of course you had Randy Newman, who rocked the singing, and then rocked his speech. Next year, we should just have Kirk Douglas host the Oscars. It would be the longest affair ever, but I just can't get enough Kirk Douglas right now.

Speaking About Mothers
The best Oscars acceptance speech has to go to Luke Matheny, for God Of Love. He had a good reference to his mom, he was excited, and he seemed genuinely happy to be there. I joked that he must have been on ecstasy after winning, but it was a really good acceptance speech. The next has to go to Tom Hooper, who had another reference to his mother, the inspiration of the The King's Speech.

So About That Speech...
The most buzz-worthy moment has to be the f-bomb that Melissa Leo dropped. First off, as the expected winner, I didn't expect so much spontaneity. I expected something rehearsed, but obviously she decided to step it up a notch. To be honest, I didn't know she dropped the f-bomb until Christian Bale enlightened us (by the way, Christian Bale had a very good acceptance speech also). As expected as it was, I still can't believe the spectacle she created after winning. I honestly hope she does not win again.

Surprise!!
There were only two minor surprises this year. One was that Inception beat out True Grit for Best Cinematography, which is less surprising because Inception won the American Cinematographer's Award or whatnot. And the other was Tom Hooper beating out David Fincher for Best Director. Tom Hooper did win the Director's Guild Award, but Fincher had been riding on so much momentum. Fincher was essentially a lock going into the night, so it was surprising to see Hooper come out on top.

The Winners
Best Picture: The King's Speech
Best Actor: Colin Firth, The King's Speech
Best Actress: Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo, The Fighter
Best Director: Tom Hooper, The King's Speech
Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network
Best Original Screenplay: David Seidler, The King's Speech

For all of the other winners, just go to the Oscars website. 

White Sox Week: Mark Buehrle

Is there really any surprise as to which White Sox player is the most important right now? It has to be their lefty ace Mark Buehrle. He is a four-time All-Star. He started an All-Star Game, started a World Series Game, and saved a World Series game all in one season. He has one World Series ring and two Golden Gloves. He is an expert pick off artist. He has two no-hitters (against Texas Ranger and Tampa Bay Rays), with the latter a perfect game (featuring DeWayne Wise's unbelievable catch). He has been under fire recently for comments on Michael Vick and how he could be an animal right's activist and a hunter. There is a good reason for that, but he is typically seen as a family man and team player. He is important because he is really the anchor of the White Sox rotation. He is contemplating retirement at the ripe age of 31 just so he could be with his family more. There are currently two White Sox players who will undoubtedly have their numbers retired. One will be Paul Konerko, and the other will be Buehrle. Good luck Buehrle. Hopefully you will have another standout season. Go White Sox!

White Sox Week: Paul Konerko

So I was pretty tired yesterday so I skipped White Sox Week, which actually worked out perfectly because now everything is in perfect place. Today's player is Paul Konerko. He and Mark Buehrle have essentially been the face of the White Sox for the last decade, for good reason. Konerko is an impressive power hitter with over 300 homeruns with the Sox. He is a smart hitter with a good on-base-percentage. He is the 2005 ALCS MVP. He put up MVP like numbers last year, but with age catching up to him, he may not have many more years like that. But I'd put trust in Paulie for the next 3 or 4 years. He leads his team like no other and he is a great overall team player. His defense is starting to fall and his hitting will die down, but he can hit and he can hit far. He will be their 3 or 4 hitter. I'm expecting big things out of Paulie this year. Go White Sox!

Thoughts on the Trade Deadline

The NBA certainly has been shaken up, which may actually lead to some evenness between the competition between the East and the West. Franchise players were traded, as were effective role players. Let's see the best of the best and the worst of the worst from the trade deadline.

New York Knicks
The Knicks had the biggest, though most expected, trade of the week, getting Carmelo Anthony. There is only one certain winner in this situation and that is Carmelo Anthony. He got what he wanted and now joins Amare Stoudemire as the faces of the New York Knicks. A lot of people may be jumping on the New York bandwagon, but I wouldn't be so fast to do so. They lost a lot of size by trading for Carmelo Anthony, and though Chauncey Billups (also acquired from the Nuggets) is great, I see him more as a mentor to Toney Douglas or Landry Fields. They now have two dynamic scorers, which is great. But they don't compare to the Heatles in Miami because they lack the talent. They can't match the Celtics because they lack the chemistry. They can't match the Bulls because they lack the defense. They can't even match the Magic because they lack the size. They gave up too much for someone they probably would've signed in the postseason because he wasn't going to the Bulls. The Knicks were the only team who had an extension waiting for Anthony. It may all work out, but I can't see the Knicks turning into a contender until they beef up their roster.

New Jersey Nets
They seem like the other winners of the trade deadline, but they really aren't. They gave up a good inside prospect in Derrick Favors and a decent, but not great, point guard in Devin Harris. Sure they got one of the best point guards in the league, but I doubt that Deron Williams will stay with the New Jersey Nets. That team is a mess. Sure he will have Brook Lopez to pass to, but Deron Williams went from one reeling team to another. The Nets must make some moves to add some more scoring like signing David West in the offseason. The only thing the Nets gained is a franchise player, and that will help attract more talent to the Nets. They did add some size in Brandan Wright (a lottery pick) and Dan Gadzuric, but neither of them can help out Lopez in the post.

Denver Nuggets
They no longer have Anthony, but they gained some respectable talent, though no one that stands out as a franchise player. Wilson Chandler and Danilo Gallinari are both great talent at the wings, and Raymond Felton is underrated as a point guard, though I think the Nuggets should still stick with Ty Lawton. Now Denver has to sign Nene because he is one of the better centers in the league. They will be going through a lot of rebuilding before they can return to their Anthony days, but they are on the right track. They also added Kosta Koufos, but I don't understand how that could possibly help.

Utah Jazz
They lose one of the best coaches ever and now one of the best point guards in the league. No amount of Paul Millsap could save this season. Adding Derrick Favors loads up an already overcrowded front court. Devin Harris is great, but he's more of a scorer than a distributor. This season is lost. They should start looking at those picks and who they should get because they are going to be in the lottery this year.

Golden State Warriors
All they needed was someone who could join David Lee up front as a more defensive minded player and they would be set. Instead they got Troy Murphy. Congratulations Golden State. You may make the playoffs, but then again, so did the Seattle Seahawks. I kid, but Golden State didn't do much, even though they still had a lot of people they could've dumped. They make the playoffs on the trigger fingers of Monta Ellis and Stephen Curry, but they still need size, which they actually lost in the trading season.


New Orleans Hornets
They added Carl Landry, which is very helpful. I think that Landry will be a good fill-in off the bench. He is nowhere near David West talent-wise, but he is a great addition to the bench. They lose Marcus Thornton, which sucks, but not harmful. Thornton is a shooting guard who adds okay defense and good shooting. If you can't find someone to replace Thornton, you are a bad GM.

Sacramento Kings
They added Marcus Thornton and Marquis Daniels, which is pretty good. They are well-sized up front and now added some scoring off the bench or as a starter. This is one of those trades that seems to be very unimportant in the entire context of the NBA. Neither of them is a real game-changer every game, so the Kings just added more talent.

Boston Celtics
I actually don't know what to do with the Celtics. They gave away a playoff tested center in Kendrick Perkins and a good (and entertaining) bench player in Nate Robinson for Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic. Neither help them on the inside because Krstic is more of a shooting center and Green does not have the size to rebound. They lost a good center, whom everybody loved. They have actually shaken up the chemistry. I still think that the Celtics are the team in the East to beat, but they now are more vulnerable inside since they gave up a lot of size (including Semih Erden and Luke Harangody).

Oklahoma City Thunder
The biggest winners of the trade deadline without a doubt. They only needed size. They had good scoring off the bench. They had a superstar. They had a great point guard. All they needed was a center. And look at that, they have two. They have a good starting center in Perkins and a great back up in Nazr Mohammed. They did not give up too much. They did give away Jeff Green, but the production of Perkins (when he returns from injury) will more than make up for it. 

Cleveland Cavaliers
They added Baron Davis, which is not a great as it sounds, especially given his history with Byron Scott. They also added Semih Erden and Luke Harangody. All they lost was an aging Mo Williams and the dunktastic Jamario Moon. It does not matter whether they are winners or losers because this year, the only thing the Cavs seem to be able to do is lose. They added very little with the trade. They better hope Jared Sullinger is the second coming of Kevin Garnett (but he isn't).

Charlotte Bobcats
They added no one of importance and parted with Gerald Wallace. They replaced Nazr Mohammed with Joel Przybilla. They added a couple of picks. Wallace did have an expiring contract, but they actually could've fought their way into the playoffs. They still have a chance (I mean, as long as you are in the East you have a chance), but they lost a great player in Wallace. Don't expect anything much from this team other than effort and tenacity.

LA Clippers
They kinda ruined the chemistry that was growing between Baron Davis and Blake Griffin by trading Davis, but now the Clippers have two amazing dunkers in Jamario Moon and Blake Griffin. No winner or loser here. There was nothing gained from the trade because Williams is essentially Baron Davis without the dunking. Both are point guards who have a major shoot-first attitude.

Atlanta Hawks
Kirk Hinrich is traded again after staying with the Bulls for about 7 years. But Hinrich is a great guard to have for any team. He isn't the best scorer or passer, but he is one of the best perimeter defenders in the game. He has great chemistry with his teammates, and he is an overall good basketball player. They lose Mike Bibby, who is a better scorer, but he does not possess even a tenth of the defensive talent that Hinrich has. They also add Hilton Armstrong for size, I suppose. He will go well with Al Horford up front.

Washington Wizards
They now have Mike Bibby, Jordan Crawford, and Maurice Evans. Bibby will help John Wall develop as a jump shooter, but Wall has Bibby beat in almost everything else. Crawford and Evans may just crack the rotation, but only Crawford seems to have the potential to be a long term investment for the rebuilding Wizards. They lost a lot of defense by giving away Hinrich, but they added a good prospect in Crawford. We'll have to wait for this to develop.

Houston Rockets
The Rockets now have Hasheem Thabeet (who I guess makes up for the lack of a center) and Goran Dragic (who is worse than Aaron Brooks). I don't understand their trades. Sure they needed a center, but Thabeet is not the answer. He is too raw offensively and still lacks a good basketball IQ. Dragic is a definite downgrade from Aaron Brooks. Dragic is okay, but Brooks had scoring and passing abilities. They also lost a great defender and 3-point shooter in Shane Battier. Rockets are in definite rebuilding mode, and it looks like Yao Ming is out of the picture.

Memphis Grizzlies
They are reunited with Shane Battier, and they lost their bust of a pick Hasheem Thabeet. Since they will be without Rudy Gay for a couple of weeks, Battier is a great plug who can add defense and an outside shot. Don't expect him to make plays like Gay did, but expect him to do his part in getting the Grizzlies into the playoffs.

Phoenix Suns
I doubt that Nash will be playing in Phoenix next year because of the addition of Aaron Brooks. Brooks isn't that great of a passer and he seems more fit for a shooting guard, but he is a point guard who can score and pass with effectiveness. Nash is the loser because he really is one of the hardest working guards in the league. It sucks that he will be kicked out of Phoenix so unceremoniously.

Portland Trail Blazers
They added Gerald Wallace, which really is enough. They have an additional perimeter scorer to help out Brandon Roy. Wallace can do everything too. He is a great defender and rebounder. He can score from anywhere. He is the ideal swingman for the Blazers. They will make the playoffs. They gave up a lot of future picks, but with a good talented core, they don't need that many picks for the future.

Toronto Raptors

This picture sums it all up.

So any thoughts about the trade deadline? Add on!

White Sox Week: Adam Dunn

Writer's Note: I'm really stupid because I realized today that White Sox Week will end February 26 not 27, which means that I screwed up math-wise. So we'll just see what happens okay?

Adam Dunn is the White Sox's $56 million over 4 years man. He is one of the best and most consistent lefty hitters in the game, and he will be playing in a hitter's park. Sure he has some problems with defense, and he strikes out a lot, but does Dunn put the White Sox in a better position to win the AL Central Division? Given the weakness of that division, I would say yes. The White Sox will be one of the top three teams in that division. The Cleveland Indians are still reeling and have yet to find their rhythm, and the Kansas City Royals will still need to let their abundant farm system develop before they could try to win anything. The Minnesota Twins will definitely be in the race, and don't count out the Detroit Tigers because they do have an MVP candidate in Miguel Cabrera (off-field issues aside). But Adam Dunn can produce runs for the White Sox, and he will be a part of the great 3-4-5 that is Paul Konerko, Dunn, and Carlos Quentin. Sure he will be used as a designated hitter, which may cause some chemistry issues, but Dunn is a baseball player. He can hit them and he can hit them hard. Go White Sox!

Make A Meme

So, I'm gonna have this recurring thing where when I think of a good idea for a meme, I will make it and put it on this blog. Just because I can. If you come up with something good, feel free to email me. Sweet!

White Sox Week: Carlos Quentin

Carlos Quentin, 2 years removed from a MVP-like season, has to bounce back this year. Because of injury and the possible slump, Quentin just wasn't himself last year, though he still hit for some power with 26 home runs. As the probable number 5 hitter behind Paul Konerko and Adam Dunn, he has to return to his MVP self because the White Sox are not known as a hitting team despite having a hitter's park. They have relied on pitching, but with Quentin hitting at his best and at his potential, the White Sox can really go. He also has to start accepting his role as a power hitter and learn that people will fear his swing a little bit more. Hopefully he will mature and become a more patient, but still powerful, number 5 hitter. Go White Sox!

Glee Review: Blame It On The Alcohol

Another Tuesday has come and gone, and another Glee review is created on my blog. In "Blame It On the Alcohol", Principal Figgins asks Will to have New Directions perform at the Alcohol Awareness assembly about a song that shows the dangers of alcohol. Rachel, on the other had, is having trouble creating a song (really? "My Headband"?), so she decides to live a little and throw a glee club party. This went extremely well after Puck broke into her fathers' alcohol drawer. Was it just me or can Mike Chang drink? Finn, who has been really dickish the last couple of episodes, plays the character of reason as the designated driver and the guy who controls the drunken horde. Then it's spin-the-bottle time! Sam and Brittany make out, leading to the hysterical wrath of Santana and the saddened/angry gaze of Quinn. But the big news is that Blaine made out with Rachel. The next morning went well after a couple of Bloody Maries, and somehow Will could not realize that any of them were drunk. So looking to blow off some steam, he and the Beiste go out to a bar and get plastered/smashed/shwasted/(add your own euphemism here). Will then proceeds to grade his students' quizzes drunk (leading to all A+'s!). But then Will drunk-dials Sue. This, followers, is why you never call anyone when you are that drunk. Beiste is right though. You can't stop kids from drinking. You just have to make them aware of the consequences that drinking has. Meanwhile, Blaine and Rachel begin to date, and obviously Kurt is crushed. Kurt confronts Blaine and they have a falling apart. Then Kurt confronts Rachel and Rachel vows to kiss Blaine sober, to see if the sparks are there still. Then you had a good Burt and Kurt moment, though it treated Burt as a caricature as opposed to previous times when he acted more realistic. Then the assembly, which apparently (and truthfully) seem to always end in riots. This one ended a little bit worse with Santana and Brittany throwing up in the song. Then the kicker. That drunk dial that Will gave Sue? It was played out over the intercom for the entire school to hear. Including Emma. With Blurt/Kaine in limbo, I'm pulling for Will and Emma again. I know Will is kinda a tool, but that ending of the first half of the first season really was the epitome of Glee. Fortunately, the glee club was considered a success and everything returned to normal. They threw in a little bit of a "if you drink, drink responsibly" part, but it felt right with the episode. And last bombshell, Blaine is gay, realizing this with the help of Rachel. But Rachel doesn't have a problem with that because she can now write her song?? Okay, Glee. That'll do. The best line goes to Principal Figgins: "Michael Dukakis could not make it due to indifference." He delivered the line so well, acting like a real sad sap. I don't think Iqbal Theba gets enough credit for his role as Figgins. Also gotta love "Ke dollar sign ha" right? Best song is really difficult to tell because none were really that great. I liked "Blame It" and "Don't You Want Me", but no song in this episode really sticks out as superb. Also, am I the only one who likes the fact that Beiste always mouths the words of the song? I really like her as a character because she is really intimidating, but she is also very sweet (just remember Artie's gift from Christmas). Also one last thing. I'm gonna start looking for the different types of drunk girls at parties now (teary, hysterical drunk; angry drunk; happy drunk; acting-like-a-stripper drunk; needy, overly-loving drunk).

White Sox Week: A.J. Pierzynski

Now there is really only one reason to add A.J. Pierzynski to this list. Of all of the players on the White Sox, only one person has a personality that barely rivals Ozzie Guillen's. And that person is A.J. Pierzynski. He is known more for being an instigator or controversial figure (especially on that 2005 World Series-winning team). But he is good talent at the catcher position and may be one of the better pitch-callers behind the plate. He is a decent defender (though nowhere near Golden Glove-ability), and he provides a steady left-handed presence at the plate. But he is a character and he makes the game fun to watch. He may be hated outside of the South Side, but as a White Sox fan, we can't help but embrace the big personalities on the White Sox, whether it is the highly-outspoken Ozzie Guillen or the controversial A.J. Pierzynski. For the road, one more iconic picture of the baseball player, which all Angels fans would have engraved in their head.

White Sox Week: Alexei Ramirez

Alexei Ramirez aka "The Cuban Missile". Ramirez gets knocked for being really undisciplined at the plate, but as a young player, he will (hopefully) grow out of that. I mean, he has Omar Vizquel helping him out hopefully. But other than his complete lack of patience, Ramirez has a lot of promise. He is a defensive dynamo and considered the deserving winner of last year's Golden Glove (as opposed to the popular, but poor defender that is Derek Jeter). He won the Silver Slugger last year, giving the White Sox another powerful hitter to go with Paul Konerko and Adam Dunn. The team's success won't hinge solely on him, but he is still one of the biggest influences to the team because of his ability to contribute both defensively and offensively. Go White Sox!

White Sox Week: Jake Peavy

With the first White Sox Spring Training game eight days away, I thought I would lead it in with a 7-day profile of important players followed by a look into their season. So for the first player, I'm gonna look at Jake Peavy.

If there is anyone who the White Sox could really use, it would be Peavy. When Peavy is 100%, he is a Cy Young candidate (just look at his 2007 campaign). Unfortunately, with Jake Peavy, there is a huge "but". He is often injured, and his injuries have taken its toll. He can't put as much zip on the ball, and he still hasn't recovered for spring training. Don't be surprised if Chris Sale, after an impressive debut season, comes up as the 5th starter. But for now, let's hope Peavy can be healthy, because if Peavy is healthy, the White Sox have one of the top rotations in the league. Go Sox!

Derrick Rose Superstar

With the NBA All-Star Game tomorrow, I wanted to talk about my favorite basketball team in the US: the Chicago Bulls. I became a fan back when Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were on the team. I was a fan from the Scott Skiles to the coaching debacle of the 2007-08 season to Vinny Del Negro to right now with Coach Thibodeau. But, the Bulls never returned to their glory days with Michael Jordan at the helm and Scottie Pippen acting as second fiddle. That hopefully will all change with the arrival of Derrick Rose, who has become a true superstar (starting his first All-Star game in his third season). I consider him to be the best point guard in the East. A lot of people would say that Rajon Rondo on the Boston Celtics is a better point guard because he is overall a better passer and a better defender. But Derrick Rose can do things that no other point guard could do. Just look at the picture above. No point guard in the league has the athleticism to make a play like that. Just look at this, this, and this. He has amazing body control and finishing ability. There are times in the game where I'm surprised he even gets that deep in the paint and then converts the play. And he can only approve. He developed a jump shot, which really put him over the top of everybody. He has been embracing his new role as the face of the Bulls. But he still maintains the grounded humility that makes him such a great team player. He is willing to take the game into his hands and he lives and dies by the result. There are only two point guards who are better than him: Chris Paul and Deron Williams. This may seem bold, but I think it will be true. Derrick Rose will surpass both of them. He is just too good of a basketball player to be beat. Too fast, too strong, too quick, too good. Derrick Rose is a star point guard in the NBA. But Derrick Rose will become a superstar in this league. His number 1 will be hanging in the United Center after he retires. He will be mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan when it comes to Chicago basketball for years to come. Just remember. Fast don't lie.

Why Skynet Won't Succeed Yet: A Look Into Watson and the Impending Robotic Apocalypse

So, this week on Jeopardy, the producers created the IBM challenge where they would challenge Watson with Brad Rutter (the highest money total in all of Jeopardy) and Ken Jennings (the longest win-streak in Jeopardy history). The test for Watson would be the use of technology in human language, because it is strictly a human invention. Watson would have to understand all of the nuances behind language, such as puns and double entendres. His success on Jeopardy partly showed that robots may be able to interpret language, but the one thing that he will never be able to do would be understand the way humans typically think. His success on Jeopardy was because of his ability to find facts using different parts of the question. He was able to think faster and respond quicker. But when it came down to Final Jeopardy, Watson's true weakness was finally revealed. The category was US Cities, and the answer was "Its biggest airport is named after a World War II hero; its second biggest after a World War II battle site". The answer is Chicago (referring to O'Hare and Midway International Airport). A human would consider cities with multiple large airports. But Watson looked for WWII heroes and battle sites rather than cities with large airports. Robots will never be able to replicate human thought. Humans will have the upper hand because we can think comprehensively. We are able to put importance on certain ideas in the question, which allow us to answer questions better. This was demonstrated by the Final Jeopardy answers. Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter answered correctly. Watson answered Toronto, which isn't even a US city. Watson can find facts, but he has no process. Humans have experience, and this is what separates robots and humans. Humans learn from experience and time, but robots can not feel time and learn from experiences. Watson proves this, and this shows that robots won't take over the world, at least for a while.

A List On What I Hate About Lists

Writer's Note: This is just a tidbit of a larger project that I am working on. I needed something for today right?

1. I hate the way lists order things from best to worst.
2. I hate the way lists make you doubt yourself.
3. I hate the way lists make you hate whoever wrote them.
4. I hate the way lists make other people write lists in the comment sections.
5. I hate the way lists omit certain people for personal reasons.
6. I hate the way lists make you list whatever they’re listing.
7. I hate the way lists make you read.
8. I hate the way lists keep popping up.
9. I hate the way lists are always the same.
10. I hate the way lists are always only top ten, when it is actually impossible to pick only ten.

Sporcle!

So yea, I kinda love Sporcle. It really is a great time-waster. Usually, I just play the games, but lately I thought that it might be nice to try to create a game. So for you people looking to waste some time, come on and try my first ever Sporcle quiz. It is about active NBA players who have played 1000 or more games, in light of a certain Bulls' center's accomplishments. Here's the link. Have fun stimulating your mind!

Update: I changed the extra information from position to seasons played. Having the team there will make it still rather easy, but it will be a little bit more difficult now, hopefully.

The Problem With Vampires Today: An Editorial

Writer's Note: I'm feeling really lazy today so I'm looking back at my old stuff and found this lying around. This was for a class project on a creative work, so I chose Twilight despite not having anything to do with it. It was more for a bet than anything else. I mean it was second semester senior year. So here you go.

I miss the days when being a vampire meant something. Dracula was a Halloween favorite and the idea of bloodsucking beings spooked the hell out of us. They had menacing fangs, and silly weaknesses like garlic. Now look at what the vampire has been degraded to. In True Blood, they are not the same solitary monster that they are in Dracula, but a “targeted” society with a new blood source. The Vampire Diaries do hold true to the drinking blood part, but now the vampires are played by brooding teenagers not bloodsucking fiends. But no franchise has ruined the vampire more than the Twilight Saga. Dracula by Bram Stoker was about a vampire who created the hollowed rules of vampires. They can not live in the sunlight, avoid garlic, and can be killed with a stake through the heart. He was feared by many and he lived in Transylvania. He had a presence that could be felt by all those around him. He was the ultimate in horror. The vampires in Twilight have completely redefined the idea of vampire. The vampires of lore would kill humans and drink their blood, while the main character Bella is saved by a vampire (Edward). They did get one thing right, vampires are supposed to be pale, mysterious creatures. Too bad Edward, and a lot of other vampires nowadays, was pale and mysterious in the seductive way. Women fell for Dracula, but these women were already part of the undead. They suffered his same weaknesses because Dracula had the common decency to do his business with other vampires. Edward has the hots for Bella, and it is obvious. Women fall of Edward too but that’s because he’s dreamy and saved Bella’s life. He is cross-breeding creating some human-vampire hybrid, completely violating the laws of the supernatural. Dracula’s biggest enemy is humans, primarily Van Helsing and his army of humans. Yes humans. Not other vampires, or werewolves. Humans. Get it right, Stephanie Meyer. Vampire’s biggest enemies are humans. Not other vampires like the Volturi. Not werewolves like Jacob. Vampires should go against humans. The closest place where this actually happened was the baseball game. When the most action between humans and vampires is debated between making out and a baseball game, there is no way that this can be considered a vampire book/film/anything. The last thing that is the problem with vampires, primarily the Twilight vampires, is that they are not scary. Sure they may have some “shocking moments”, but you won’t see Twilight or any of the books going down as one of the most frightening books of our generation. That is a title reserved to books like Frankenstein, The Shining (or most books written by Stephen King), or Dracula. Even the Harry Potter series packed more fear into their books. These books instilled fear in the reader, not happy thoughts of some dream vampire waiting to swoop you off your feet. I’m not saying that Twilight does not belong to our society. It carries a huge following and gives everyone something to look forward too. It is our generation’s thing that we either love with a dying passion or hate with an undying fervor. But when it comes to vampires, Twilight and other “vampires” of our times have it all wrong.

Glee Review: Comeback

So, today's episode was at times good, at times funny, and at times just plain awkward. First thing, why is this week's assignment to choose an anthem? That just seems like a really random and difficult to interpret sort of thing to do. In other news, Sam decided to become Justin Bieber and I was truly worried that, though he is a phenomenon, Justin Bieber would get his own tribute episode. I'm not disrespecting his mass appeal, but I thought that tribute episodes should be for people who have had a major impact on music, like Madonna. Then all of the other guys, except Finn (who is starting to turn out to be the bad seed now that Puck has gone completely good guy on us), join the Justin Bieber Experience and it drives the girls mad. Quinn and Finn have their flirtatious moment (artists apparently turn Quinn on), but it was in private. It doesn't have to be anymore now that Santana broke up Quinn and Sam because Quinn couldn't look Sam in the eyes and tell him that she doesn't have anything to do with Finn. Sue tried to commit Sue-icide, and with that she joined the glee club. She at first tried to sabotage the glee club, but Will tried to appeal to her nice side by bringing her to the pediatric cancer center. This may be some of the most beautiful and touching moments in this series as Sue starts to look like a real human being. But she has to turn around and lead Aural Intensity now that she has the musical spirit. Last but (not necessarily) least was Rachel using Brittany to spark her own comeback. It was weird watching everyone start to turn into Rachel, but Brittany was right. Everyone thinks very poorly of Rachel. So the best line goes to Sue: "I wonder if I could get that girl to join the Cheerios" after watching Sam (not a girl) perform "Baby". Best song goes to the diva-off between Mercedes and Rachel: "Take Me or Leave Me." Some of the best vocals and most powerful music after the hiatus. Probably will go down as one of the best songs of this season. Well comments, concerns, insults, advice, etc? Divulge below.

Banking on Success

Success is one of the most sought after ideals in life. But I had a very interesting discussion on what success actually is. It really came down to how can one person quantify their own success. We came to the conclusion that there are different ways people could succeed. I thought that it was easiest to qualify success based on an award system. Success is measured through grades, GPA, and essentially winning. The other side was that success is the achievement of your own goal. Here are the problems with both ways.

If you consider success as the achievement of an individual goal, you will have personally succeeded. But there are two different ways to look at this. What if your goal was to fail? If you did fail, will you still have succeeded? This seeming contradiction brings about another dilemma. Is there a distinction between personal and public success? Going back to the earlier example, by failing you have succeeded. But by failing, you have also failed. One of these is a personal success while the other is a public failure. Which type of success matters?

If you consider success as measurements like grades or GPA or awards like trophies and medals, then you have the opposite problem. Being the best may seem to be a success story in itself, but the problem is success in other parts of your life. One person can not be successful at everything. So this raises another problem with the definition of success. Is success set to only one event or does it encompass your entire life? Because you can certainly succeed in say a tournament, but you could also be failing in almost every other aspect of your life. If this occurs, are you still a success?

The two questions that arose when talking about these different definitions of success help bring about a better definition. We wondered whether success is personal or public and whether success is time-sensitive (as in one moment or an entire lifetime). Well, though this may not be a complete definition of success, we could describe success in two forms. Public success is succeeding for even a moment in time. Personal success spans an entire lifetime. Agree or disagree? If you agree, comment. If you don't, complain.

P.S. I'll be honest, I actually had no idea where I was going with this. It's kinda weird how you could start out with nothing and somehow end with a potentially working definition of success.

Things I've Learned about Love (From The Movies)

In the loving mood of Valentine's Day, I'm going to tell you what love really is, according to the movies.

If you are in high school, the hot outcast girl will always fall for the sensitive jock looking to repair his image. This girl's best friend will typically end up with a character who always seems to pop up somewhere in the movie even though he/she doesn't really have a substantive part.

If you have been friends with someone for over 8 or so years and you've graduated from high school, you will realize that your best friend is the only true love in your life. However, you can not fall in love with your best friend because either you are in a relationship with an inattentive and chauvinistic boyfriend or because you are courting the future inattentive and chauvinistic boyfriend.

All guys have a friend who is extremely vulgar and demeaning towards women. But this friend has a change of heart after he sees you fall in love with the love of your life. This woman is typically a lot hotter than you would expect.

All girls have a friend who is completely and utterly helpless when it comes to love or eccentrically quirky. This friend will usually fall in love also, typically with a friend of the other guy.

There is always a stable or married couple in the movie that experiences some sort of fight because of the main character's relationship. They will typically be reunited at the end, also because of the main character's relationship.

If you have been in love with someone for a very long time, she/he and her/his friends never realize that you've had these feelings despite some very obvious and telltale signs.

A relationship can never be ruined until the issue of sex arises. Then the relationship is doomed for a while until the two lovebirds reconcile and get back together.

Nothing says romance than an extravagant and impractical romantic gesture.

Everyone has a chance with anyone, unless you look like a complete tool.

Men who are only after sex always are physically assaulted in the testicular area by someone (typically a woman who that man was courting, and typically with a swift knee to the balls).

Whenever you break up with someone, you should take long walks in the middle of the sidewalk despite the fact that everyone else is headed in your direction. You can't help but notice that every single thing that you look at for even a short amount of time somehow seems to look like your lost love.

There is always a woman who is looking to break up the main characters' relationship. This woman is typically a work-rival, a school-rival, an ex-best friend, an ex-wife, or an ex-girlfriend. She is typically crazy and despite the fact that she has looks to get anyone else, she will always go for the one that left her. She will use her overt sexuality in order to break up a relationship.

If you let your ex-girl/boyfriend into your house, your current girl/boyfriend will catch you in a compromising situation where it was very clear that you weren't doing anything, but somehow your ex-girl/boyfriend can convince your current girl/boyfriend otherwise.

If you told a lie before you got into a relationship, someone, typically a jealous person, will reveal the lie. The other person in the relationship will then leave you despite the fact that you tell her that everything other than that lie was real and that you really do love her/him.

So that is what I know about love, strictly from the movies. If you have any other lessons you would like to share, please enlighten us in the comment section. Have a great Valentine's Day/Singles Awareness Day!

Is Leonard's Last Name in Memento Really "Shelby"?

Writer's Note: Do not read if you haven't seen Memento. This post contains spoilers.

So I recently watched Memento and I will admit, even though it was my second time watching it, I was still very confused on the ending. I guess that would be a good thing. But while I was watching it, I caught a bit of the credits. And I realized that Leonard's last name is not given in the ending. If you don't believe me here' the picture:

As you can see, Guy Pearce does not play someone named Leonard Shelby, but is credited as someone who simply plays Leonard. Now this could just be for simplicity because no one else has a last name. For example, Sammy Jankis is credited as only Sammy. Now this is a purely wacky idea, but what if Leonard was wrong about his last name? It really doesn't make sense to some people because he told other people that his last name was Shelby and no one corrected him. In fact when he told Teddy that he is Leonard Shelby, Teddy responded that that was who Leonard was. But there are only two people in the entire movie who refer to Leonard's last name. One of them is Leonard himself. The other is Mrs. Jankis, who we know is SPOILER a figment of Leonard's imagination. So Leonard is really the only person who refers to his last name. This begs the question: was Shelby really Leonard's last name? It probably was, but with these two new pieces of evidence, it hopefully kinda makes you wonder.

Why It's Okay For Guys to Like Chick Flicks

          Men and women are two very different types of people with stereotypically very different types of tastes. Men love the taste of steak, while women choose to partake in some chicken. Men want to watch football and women can’t wait for the next Oprah. Sure I may be generalizing here, but what this shows is a stark difference between the typical preferences of men and the typical preferences of women. So why should films be treated differently? There are movies targeted towards a male audience like Die Hard or Predator, and other action movies chockfull of violence, explosions, and the typical naked woman. Movies with a predominantly female audience include the Twilight saga, movies involving a strong-willed but romantically challenged female lead (read: Pretty Woman, Bridget Jones’ Diary, Titanic, etc.), and almost every single film Hugh Grant has starred in. These movies are colloquially called “chick flicks”, primarily because of the said flick is designed to attract said chicks. If a man watches a movie like this, he changes his entire reputation. A man card is revoked. His balls are figuratively removed. Insert your own witty, emasculating pun here. But as a guy who has a seemingly unnatural fondness of chick flicks, I’m here to advocate for this movement. The movement for men to watch romantic comedies without fear or shame. The movement for guys to recite romantic lines from movies like Notting Hill or When Harry Met Sally… without the imminent sound of laughter from his friends. The movement for the acceptance of the chick flick as a movie okay for both genders.

            The first note is that not all chick flicks are the same. Certain chick flicks, such as The Ugly Truth, Killers, 27 Dresses, and Life as We Know It, are unfortunate in that they subject to horrendous dialogue, poor acting, and an even poorer story line. There are others that follow all of the clichés of all of the other chick flicks. These clichés are like how the guy and the girl always have to have some sort of major misunderstanding or conflict before they actually end up together, quirky girl friends and vulgar guy friends, and of course the lonely montage where a character realizes how lonely they feel without their significant other. But some movies choose to embrace these clichés. One of the best examples of this is Love Actually, which uses almost every single cliché known to man. But instead of treating them as necessary for any movie, they embraced the good in each cliché. The most powerful instance of this was Sam (whose only 10 years old) running through the airport (only two years after 9/11) in order to convince the love of his life (whose also only 10 years old) to love him back. The cliché is overused, but it worked. It wasn’t sickeningly saccharine, but perfectly sweet. Other chick flicks find a way around these clichés through their own originality. Currently, the most original chick flick would be 500 Days of Summer. Yes there were certain clichés that were used in this movie, but the creativity of the film and the audacity (the movie told us that Tom wouldn’t end up with Summer!) of the movie helped hide the effects of the cliché.

            The second note is that chick flicks are reliant on chemistry, which many actors have. One of the first films that comes to mind is When Harry Met Sally…. The chemistry between Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal may have been some of the best in movie history. Their lines were perfectly orchestrated. It seemed like we were actually watching a relationship blossom out of nowhere. Sometimes it actually happens, like in the movie Once. The movie displayed two aspiring musicians, a Guy and a Girl, who never knew each other before hand. They were simply falling slowly into a relationship both on and off screen. 

            The third note is that chick flicks can be extremely romantic. Take, for instance, The Princess Bride. This is a very romantic movie about two soul mates, whose love could not even be broken by death. Or The Notebook. This movie is about two soul mates, one of whom is slowly losing her memory. The other tells her of their story for even that one moment of lucidity when she realizes that the two romantic lovers are actually themselves. Many of these romantic movies/chick flicks can lead to these very strong emotions and feelings.

            So why is it okay for guys to like chick flicks? Well, for one, chicks dig guys who are willing to show their sensitive side. But the primary reason is that chick flicks are sometimes very good movies. Yes, these movies are very romantic and kinda squishy. They may seem overly emotional for the typical guy. But some of these chick flicks are good movies. Now I’m not saying you should watch all chick flicks. There are plenty of chick flicks that are just straight-up horrible (primarily those movies with Jennifer Aniston, Katherine Heigl, etc.). But some of these romantic movies are very well made. They bend the typical rules of the expected chick flick, they portray love in the best possible way, and they bring about intense emotions. Now doesn’t that make any given chick flick like this very good? Guys can like chick flicks because they can be great movies. You don’t love it because it’s a chick flick. You love it because it is a work of creativity and beauty.

           

What I Found Wrong With The Last Airbender

Even though it’s been about 2 months since its premiere, I’m still hearing people talk all about the race-bending issue with The Last Airbender and how that is the problem of the movie. I frankly see this as a stupid (and worst) reason to hate such a bad movie. Honestly, if white people could have played those characters best, then M. Night Shyamalan should have cast them for the sake of the audience. Here is the
reason why certain people should hate The Last Airbender.

Fans of the Animated Series:

The problem with The Last Airbender is that it did not hold true to the story. Main people that weren’t there include the Kyoshi warriors (one of whom plays a major role in the huge finale), Avatar Roku, certain members of the White Lotus (King Bumi and Jeong Jeong), and Jet (somewhat of a minor character, but plays a big role in the second season). Then you have Fire Lord Ozai, whose primary purpose in the first season was to inflict a greater sense of fear into the Avatar, just shows up. There is no suspense and no tension because Ozai is not a mystery. He’s there almost all the time. He isn’t even played that well by Cliff Curtis. Usually I trust him to give at least a decent performance, but his portrayal of pure, corrupt evil was laughable. We were expecting someone to pull this off like Ray Fiennes did with Voldemort. We got stuck with Keanu Reeves as Dracula.

Then you have the characters already in the movie. I do believe that Aang  and Zuko were played to the best of the actor’s abilities given the horrible script. But Katara, Admiral Zhao, Uncle Iroh, and especially Sokka were either caricatures of their true characters or simply too underacted. This is not complaining about the pronunciation of these names because in an ironic twist of events, the names were changed to make them more Asian. But Katara, played by Nicole Peltz (whom M. Night thinks is the best casting decision since Haley Joel Osment was cast as Cole Sear in The Sixth Sense), essentially had no character. She was underdeveloped as the romantic interest of Aang, and we never see enough of her to see if she really is as motherly as the series plays her out to be. Admiral Zhao was another story. Aasif Mandvi (who is funny, but wrong place, wrong time to do so) was just a d-bag. True Admiral Zhao is evil, but he was not evil in an annoying way. We wanted Zhao to die in the series because he was dastardly evil, but I wanted Zhao to die in the film because every scene he was in I wanted to stab my ears because of Mandvi’s seemingly humorous approach to a true villain. Iroh was just a victim of a bad script. Shaun Toub had no chance to portray Iroh’s spiritual wisdom and hearty manner in the movie. Sokka was the worst. His character in the television series blatantly says that he is the meat and sarcasm guy. His character in the film (played by Jackson Rathbone) has no substance. He is not that Sokka that he is in the television series. It was just a horribly acted character by an already weak actor.

Lastly, the entire storyline doesn’t stick with the TV series. It was pretty much M. Night finding segments of the series he liked and cramming them together into a movie. He may say that it was just too long of a program to make it flow perfectly. May I cite the Harry Potter series and the Lord of the Rings trilogy as two essentially really long stories condensed into a movie absolutely perfectly? Why couldn’t M. Night just make the movie longer? It would solve blatant plot holes (Earthbenders were already on earth when they were imprisoned, they almost did not talk about Sozin’s comet), character flaws (Pakku just lets Katara and Aang train with him, everybody knows about Zuko’s past), and differences between the movie and the series (Zhao was killed by the ocean spirit, not vengeful waterbenders, firebenders need a source of fire in order to firebend, the Fire Nation does not just run away because of some giant wave Aang creates while in the Avatar state).

Regular movie-goers
Really the obvious problem with this film is the script. M. Night said himself that script-writing is not really his forte. And that was very obvious in this movie. The writing is horrible. It is overly dramatic and sometimes so bad its funny. The way the actors say the lines also is cringe-worthy. They can not seem to find any middle ground. They are either overacting or not even trying. No one wants to see actors just give up.
The other major problem is the storyline. There is no flow. I have seen episodes flow better than this. It seems to be just one story after another. M. Night tries to patch it up using Katara’s narration, but that once again goes back to the entire bad writing thing. These are really only two major problems, but what a big two they are. The story and the writing is bad. I could talk about the actors and how badly they did, but I feel that they are victim to M. Night’s direction and writing.