The fifth season of Lost premiered not even half an hour ago, and it was an interesting episode. Not entirely what I was hoping for, an a little lackluster, to be honest. Alas, a couple observations regarding the first episode…

This has been happening for a while now, but it’s beginning to reach a maddening point. As viewers become more desperate for answers, J.J Abrams seems to have developed this tendency to place some sort of strange revelation near the beginning of the episode, while not really providing anything else of value for the rest of the hour. Case in point, the episode started off with what appeared to be an early look at the Dharma initiative, featuring none other than Dr. Hallowax filming a station orientation video. But the intriguing bit was who else we got to see in passing – Dr. Daniel Faraday, the scientist who seemingly understands a great deal regarding the effect time has upon the island, was seen during the construction of one of DHARMA’s stations. It’s an interesting revelation, but one that only serves to introduce more questions into the island’s already convoluted timeline.

Of particular annoyance was that the episode really failed to answer much more than we already learned at the end of last season. We’ve already established that everyone needs to go back to the island. We’ve already established no one trusts Ben. We’ve already established that something’s fishy with their attempts to return, and that John Locke’s seemingly dead body is of particular importance. Really, the entire episode simply felt like more of a refresher, which, as usual, introduced far more questions than answers.

What I did find interesting was a breif scene involving a woman we’ve encountered before. When Desmond first experienced his strange, time-based flashbacks, he met an older, white-haired woman who warned him of the futility of trying to change the past. This time, we’re introduced to her in Ben’s company. Interestingly enough, it’s not Ben who’s calling the shots, but her in this situation, perhaps providing some indication as to who’s clearly in charge. Also peculiar is the location in which she’s found; while Ben lights candles in a church hall, the white haired woman appears to be toiling away at calculations, in a technologically laden room very similar to one of the island’s hatches. It’s another example of DHARMA technology and influence existing outside of the island, but raises the ever-present question of how exactly it came to be in the first place.

Overall, it was a premiere that seemed to recognize the dire need to set things up more than anything. There was no jarring opening or relevation, like previous seasons, and the pacing was near-schizophrenic, as the episode’s plot not only jumped between the two groups of survivors, but a multitude of timelines as well. While not impressed for the time being, here’s hoping the ever-approaching end of the series gives viewers the answers they want sooner, rather than later.

Four-toed statue, anyone?

While LCD TV’s have grown hugely popular over the past couple years, their one major flaw is with regards to motion blur. You see, unlike a conventional TV, or plasma display, the refresh rate of an LCD screen depends on how fast the liquid crystals can be convinced to change colours. While the technology has gotten better in recent years, it’s still necessary for consumers to pay close attention to the refresh rate listed on any potential TV; numbers can range from as low as 2ms, to 15ms and higher. In this case, the lower number is definitely better.

Regardless, most people will notice that, when compared to more conventional TVs, this issue with refresh rates creates a bit of an annoying side effect, seen as motion blur. Sports, as a good example, usually look fine on conventional CRTs, or even plasma technology. But subject an LCD screen to a fast moving puck or ball, and you can easily see the problem in question.

In the interests of developing a solution, a number of TV manufacturers have introduced their own sets of motion-smart televisions, usually reliant on a feature dubbed 120hz displays. Sony, in particular, has an implementation known as MotionFlow, which is present in my current 47″ model. What the technology does is essentially double the frame rate of conventional film or television content, using interpolation to add extra frames to create what is supposed to be a smoother image. According to Sony’s own site…

“Not one, but two new images are added to the action, creating powerfully sharp images displayed at an astonishing 120 frames per second. You won’t miss a single detail of sporting action.

And now films and cartoons shot at 24 frames per second are made better too as Motionflow 120 inserts five new images, getting rid of any annoying judder or blur. What you’re left with is a superior reproduction of the original. You simply won’t be able to tear yourself away.”

You can even adjust the level of MotionFlow control, which is changes the extent of which images are added and processed in the creation of the final product. Yet, there’s a very large and glaring problem in this sort of fix.

When studies were conducted by a number of large TV manufacturers, the results indicated that viewers were extremely impressed by the way in which content filmed with an HD camera was displayed. Of course, this would mean convincing Hollywood to abandon their traditional 35mm lenses in favour of HD-specific cameras – a daunting and unlikely scenario. By incorporating technology like Sony’s MotionFlow, manufacturers could work to achieve the same sort of effect with current material, with the hopes of providing viewers a similar picture to that of HD-filmed content.

Of course, the results aren’t as good as one is led to believe. Films are shot in 24fps for a reason, and directors take notice of all the quirks of filming for such a format, including the speed at which the camera can be panned and zoomed. By taking content purposely filmed at such a speed, and increasing the frame rate by a huge degree, the result is an image that looks wholly unnatural. The one thing myself, and others, have noticed, is that many films viewed with MotionFlow technology turned on simply look too unnatural. While attempting to create a viewing experience that mimics the smoothness and quality of the natural eye, the end result is actually a film that looks almost too smooth, and far different from what the directors intended, and viewers expect.

Case in point, I tried watching Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey last night. While an excellent movie, the addition of MotionFlow technology simply turned many of the space sequences into a distraction, since all my attention was focused on determining what exactly was wrong. Once I realized my TV was playing games with my beloved 24fps, turning off what was otherwise supposed to be a useful innovation, actually made things better.

Further reading: Home Theatre Magazine has an excellent article on the topic of 120Hz which helped me understand things a little better. Check it out here.

I’m not entirely sure how I missed this story over the Christmas holidays, but alas, I’ll forgive myself. After all, I was spending ample time indulging upon foods and deserts. Yet, it appears the same could not be said for one particular boy this Christmas holiday, who found himself denied a custom cake from the local supermarket. And the story gets better.

The boy’s father, Heath Campbell, had gotten custom cakes for his 3 year-old son’s previous birthdays from a nearby Wal-Mart. This year, however, choosing to purchase a cake from the local ShopRite instead, the store refused to adorn the cake with name of Campbell’s son. Honestly, can you blame them?

“Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler!” it would have read.

To say Mr. Campbell is an admirer of the Nazi party would be an understatement. Campbell’s daughter is conveniently named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell. Meanwhile, the entire affair has exploded into a two separate issues, no-doubt spurred by intense media coverage both nationally and abroad.

Firstly, there is the issue of whether the cake should have been printed in the first place. Spokespeople for both Wal-Mart and ShopRite in a a number of newspaper articles have stated it’s their position to refuse the creation of cakes that are either illegal, or deemed inappropriate. Of course, what exactly is deemed “inappropriate” is a very large blanket indeed. For instance, if someone had simply requested a cake inspired by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, most would probably consider the creation of such a cake to fall into this category. Yet, in this instance, the cake is being requested by someone who clearly posses the same name, but is not an infamous war criminal. By that logic, should ShopRite reserve the right to refuse Osama and Hussein cakes too?

Of course, the obvious problem here is that, as much as Mr. Campbell would like us to believe, young Adolf has clearly been named in memory of the Nazi leader. He’s stated in a number of papers and interviews that it’s “just a name”, and that nothing should be construed from it. Yet, this is coming from a man who’s house is adorned in Swastikas, and German Nazi paraphernalia. Not to mention the unfortunate naming of his daughter.

So you can see where this story is going. What originally began as an issue of free speech rights – or would that be free icing rights? – has now snowballed into the legitimacy and implications of naming one’s children after remnants of a Nazi past. In my opinion, when covering such a story, there needs to be a very clear separation of the two While I obviously agree that it’s probably not the greatest idea to name your child Hitler, Mao, or Stalin – but that’s your prerogative. Whether he should have named his children based on such horrible historical blights in the first place is another matter entirely. So, as a Journalist, while I may not agree with what you have to say, I will support your right to say it.

Or, in this case, ice it. If only cake artists agreed.

Ask nearly anyone what their opinion of Windows Vista is, and I’m sure you’re going to get some pretty colourful responses. From what I can gather, there’s very few people who enjoy Vista, and even fewer who’ve installed it voluntarily without some degree of complaining. In fact, the irony of it all is that, in any given Vista-related conversation, you can usually hear XP mentioned more than Vista itself.

Yet, the interesting tidbit amongst this torrent of distaste is that Vista is not actually as bad as its made out to be. User Account Control – which was gleefully targeted in a particularly inaccurate Apple campaign – can be turned off in less than a couple seconds. Aero, which many people dismiss as resource-hogging eye-candy, is, in fact, an efficient part of the desktop manager, that has nearly no effect on graphical performance. I could continue to list technical follies that the bloggers and uninformed like to tout, but you probably get the point by now.

So why is this relevant now?

With the release of Windows 7, Microsoft hopes to fix many of Vista’s follies, in hopes that it can win back the users it lost. The beta, for example, is particularly slick, and a pleasant surprise for anyone that’s been following the Windows 7 development cycle. In fact, a quick jaunt through the blogosphere would even lead one to believe that Windows 7 will be the best Windows operating system ever. This, in fact, is currently popular opinion.

But what people fail to realize is that, much like Apple’s OS X improves in increments, such is the jump from Vista to 7. While 7 has gotten a much needed boost in speed, stability and efficiency, it’s definitely not a dramatic departure from Vista of old. Quirks like UAC, and the inane task of navigating network settings still remain, though to a slightly lesser degree. But, in a very, very, loose sense, one could consider Windows 7 to be the Vista that wasn’t.

Vista was released nearly three years ago. Such was a time when most computers were sold with a standard of 512mb of RAM, while Vista required 1gb bare minimum to run at a reasonable speed. Nowadays, you’d be hard pressed to find a new machine with anything less than 2gb of RAM. By that logic, one could assume that performance of Vista is – theoretically – better now than ever.

Windows 7 requires identical system specs to that of Vista. Considering that allocating 2gb of RAM to an operating system simply wasn’t feasible three years ago, it’s no wonder that Vista was doomed to fail. It was created for a very small cross-section of capable PCs, which provided no incentive for the masses to move from XP. With the release of Windows 7 near the end of this year, one wonders whether, if Vista had been released today with a plethora of standard computers ready to support it, things might have gone differently. Or was it ultimately the bandwagon of bloggers and hearsay that marked its early demise?

Tuesday will mark the long-awaited inauguration of U.S President-elect Barack Obama. For some, it marks another four years of almost certain disappointment, and an inability to live up to promises. For others, Obama is the closest thing you can get to a glowing deity. Watch for the sparkling unicorns that float him up to the podium.

Of course, no matter your opinion of the man, it’s clear that there’s going to be some sort of change to American politics and policy. Obviously, most of the world would like such a change to be for the better, but only time will truly tell what Barack can do with America’s fractured reputation. Instead, Obama’s inauguration speech will set the tone for what will almost certainly be an interesting presidency. And what better way to welcome the 44th U.S president in than with a bit of lighthearted drinking?

Luckily, it seems that the folks over at Next Round have done that job for me, and spared me the grueling hours of compiling such a list. And now, for your Inauguration evening enjoyment…

The Inauguration Day 2009 Drinking Game

Drink Every Time Someone Says:

• “Historic”
• “Monumental”
• “Kennedy”
• “Lincoln”
• “Change” (as a noun)
• “Most anticipated inauguration in history”
• The name of a celebrity who thinks their opinion matters.

Drink Every Time:

• Joe Biden’s hairplugs are awkwardly noticeable.
• You see Oprah crying.
• W glances at his watch.
• You see a mediocre looking chick with political aspirations in the crowd.
• Chris Matthews appears to get a boner.
• You see Obama’s face on a t-shirt.
• A white guy pretends to know the words to a Black Eyed Peas song.
• Keith Olbermann comes off as a smug, pretentious asshole.
• Someone in the crowd passes out.
• You see a bearded hippie.
• Jesse Jackson takes credit for Obama’s campaign.
• A Fox News correspondent speaks in hushed tones with an air of faux patriotism.

In my opinion, that’s a pretty good looking list. Of course, if I were to add a couple other notable additions….

Drink Every Time:

• Sarah Palin is mentioned by CNN correspondents
• CNN goes to a reporter “on the floor”
• Hologram technology is used. Wolf Blitzer is astounded.
• Soldiers supporting Obama shown
• McCain supports shown looking dejected
• Someone remarks upon the “long, up-hill struggle” in-store for Obama
• Trivial things – like the Obama’s dog – are mentioned. And passed off as SERIOUS BUSINESS.

So, stock up, inauguration watchers. If past events are any indication, it’s going to be one sloppy evening.