NYE - If it's overrated, it's got to be December 31

How do you ring in New Years Eve 2010? Traditionally, we’re presented with the following options:

Cruises – For those who plan ahead.

Picnics –For those who actually WANT to wake up early (to get a good view of the fireworks, particularly in Sydney).

House Party (Host) – For those who understand that come January 1, 2010, their residence is probably going to look like a Dresden shack after D-Day.

House Party (Attendee) – For those who don’t want any responsibility. A solid choice for NYE.

House Party (Small Group less than 10 people) – For a deep and meaningful session of resolutions, life’s mistakes, and possibly more regrettable (and unspoken) mistakes after loading up on the beer and sherry (assuming this is what small groups drink)

With Family – For those who aren’t old enough to drink, or young enough to enjoy the mistakes of drinking. Likely to be asleep by 12:01am.

With Partner – Likely to figure out this is the same as most other nights, or try something ‘different’. Both result in disappointment.

Alone – Either a choice (I guess?), lack of planning, in a foreign country, likely to be asleep before 12 or if self medicating, to miss the turn to New Year altogether.

Somebody may already be onto this, but I can firmly state that no matter how many streamers, new years’ novelty spectacles, free booze cruises etc are thrown around, New Years is the most overrated night of the year. Now I’m no party curmudgeon - you know the old guy, who might be asleep upstairs at a party, comes staggering down on his walking stick and pops all the balloons in sight, grunts then goes back up to take his gums out and retire. I also understand partying just needs an occasion/excuse and what better than to celebrate the turning of the Christian calendar another 365.25 days. However, the build-up to New Years is such that it’s bound to end in an anti-climax.

The best nights of the year, are the ones where you turn up to a place thinking ‘I’ll just have a couple of drinks then go home and watch Once Upon a Time in America', and then 6 hours later you find yourself stumbling back somewhere after visiting a number of places which may include a greasy kebab shop. This could be any weekend night of the year, thus resulting in at least 50 nights better than New Years. In other words, it’s all about the unexpected. High expectations may disappoint, but New-Years style build up even saddens the kid who goes to Disneyland, only to see a middle aged man, dark circles under his eyes smoking his 20^th cigarette of the hour, holding up his costume’s Mickey Mouse head. So the clock strikes 12, you wake up late afternoon Jan 1^st and realise it was just another night out with your best friends bar the smoke and mirrors – fireworks and an open bar (if it’s an event).

Perhaps I’m jaded by past experiences, I now lag my way into whatever New Years plans are provided by friends in order to reach a compromise with this thing called New Years Eve. I fear it’s something I won’t resolve anytime soon, and I don’t intend to make my peace with NYE through a ridiculous resolution – my other pet peeve about 31^st December. Why do we make New Year’s resolutions? As Morgan Freeman narrates in Shawshank Redemption ‘all it takes is time and pressure...’ Real goals are reached by chipping away at them day in, day out, not making lofty statements you’re likely to forget once recovered from an alcoholic stupor. I would propose a daily resolution, small bits and pieces at a time. One day like the pop-art exclamation “POW” that came when Adam West’s Batman slugged a villain, you may suddenly find yourself in the desired place.

I for one am trying to get out of the habit of tacking on long jokes to the end of already stretched out sentences, like the NYE patron who explains one resolution which leads to an epiphany that there are other related ones, like ‘focus more at work’ to ‘be on time to things’ to ‘save up for a watch’ etc. As you can see it’s a work in progress. So I will go forth, bravely yet cynically to a House Party (yes I’m in the third option) and perhaps this year I’ll try to explain my disdain, which is likely to be unpopular. Either that or nobody listens between food & drinks, attempted pick-ups, karaoke and Wii Tennis tournaments (FYI check the Eager Beaver on the photo in the link provided). That actually sounds like a pretty good night. Happy New Years everyone, here’s remembering that a New Year starts with a new day. So let’s make that a great 1^st of Jan.

Michael Jackson - This Is It (oh yes, it's a review)

Britney’s Circus, Pink’s Fun House and Beyoncés Sasha Fierce are among the best in a current run of extravagant, bombastic , military-precise pop tours. However if we were to believe the vision showcased by Kenny Ortega (the concert and film’s director) and Michael Jackson in This Is It, none of the current crop of pop-starlets would have held a proverbial slow-song candle to possibly the greatest concert never to be staged.

This Is It becomes an important reminder, amongst the plethora of news and gossip regarding Jackson’s personal life, of why generations of pop music fans loved him in the first place. Here we see Michael Jackson the artist: the dancer, singer, songwriter, choreographer, stage and perfectionist involved in (seemingly) every element in producing a massive pop spectacle. Where he isn’t saving his voice, he sounds as good as ever and moves phenomenally, holding his own amongst young and energetic, star-struck and wide eyed backup dancers half his age. Ortega provides an insight into Jackson’s deep understanding of his music and how it translates to live performance, picking over the details of ‘The Way You Make Me Feel’ with a keyboard player, explaining the need to allow the introduction to ‘simmer’ and build into the cocksure-stride characteristic of the song. This is Michael Jackson the masterful old-school showman, at one end exploding with energy in the opening ‘Wanna Be Startin Somethin’ and later acknowledging the power of silence to convey his message in the aftermath of ‘Earth Song’. Once any sliver of music begins during rehearsal, MJ begins to move as if his body can’t function without it, and his passion for his craft is engaging and endearing. Many wouldn’t remember the last time they’d seen him smile and seem so comfortable on screen, so embedded in the public consciousness are images of Jackson with an umbrella and dark shades exiting a courtroom, or snapped despairingly through a Jeep’s tinted windows.

There are highlights in the supporting cast; particularly Australian guitarist Orianthi Panagaris who impressively shreds an interpretation of the ‘Beat It’ solo paying homage to Eddie Van Halen’s original while injecting it with a style of her own. Amongst the drug addictions, the insomnia, the chequered and sheltered upbringing, This Is It is a note that an artist is defined by his art, and that their legacy will always lie within that work. Certainly, MJ appears uplifted when surrounded by the undoubtedly familiar environment of performance and he has a natural ability to nurture and bring out the best in everyone around him, noted duly by almost everyone in the film. This is Jackson’s show and if ever there were solace for fans looking for closure, or Doubting Thomas’s wondering if Jackson could ever surpass the Timberlake’s, Beyoncés and others he’s influenced in every way, then This Is It.

Moore's Mores, Draws Flaws

'This year is going so fast' is a sentiment I've heard so many times lately, that it would be a mouldy old cliche to suggest that I'd be rich if I had a dollar for each time it was uttered. Although it's likely that 70-80% of the time I'm probably hearing myself say it, I'm sure many can identify with the suggestion. Normally this is followed up with 'I know I say that every year, but I really feel like this one has gone faster...'. A simple retort would be that no, every year is 365.25 days long, with 24 hours per day and so on, the time is the same. However, apart from the lame Mr. Obvious joke, this is a blatant misconception; while time can be objectively measured, peoples perception of time passing can be extremely different. 1 minute in a waterboard torturing session is decidedly different to 1 minute with, say, Adriana Lima the way I would dream it). So in that vein, let's consider the 'speed' of a year as a perception of time, rather than the obvious (and still not funny) 'umm..a year is always 12 months' unicycle of thought. It's also worth mentioning the following ramble would mainly apply to those in the developing-lives 20-35 (and possibly up to 50) age bracket. On the other hand, with life expectancy rates increasing each generation, 60 may be the new 30 in no time - so let's all consider this:

Moore's law dictates that the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated circuit has doubled (approximately) every two years. For non-technical readers let me draw a simple analogy:

A board (circuit) can fit a certain number of lightbulbs on it (transistors). Moore's law suggests that, because of advancements in peg and lightbulb technology, the amount of lighbulbs that can fit on a board doubles almost every two years - more light, concentrated on the same board area.

Ok, maybe that was a bit weak, almost as if I don't know what analogy means. Anyway, as Brian Moriarty would say, 'The Point Is...' that Moore's law effectively doubles the speed of computers each year. This allows us to perform functions twice as fast and, in an only slightly simple stretch of logic, multiplies the amount of things we're able to do (since most things we do in our lives are via computers), all within the same 24 hour day. Although this also means more technology is developed to automate our lives (think of Roledex before outlook, throwing actual paper balls in office bins before 'Paper Toss' for iPhone etc) it also means more time managing our gadgets. Our tasks are playing catchup with what we can let our gadgets do. Moore's law may in fact have an abstract relation to laws of relative time (general relativity), in that the speed of technological developments also affects our perceptions of 'time' and the speed of our lives. In which case, of course this year seems faster than ever, because our computers, phones etc have doubled in speed and capacity.

It is also arguable that developments in computing capabilities affect everyone implicitly, even for those of us who haven't upgraded our personal technology. For example, a development in film camera technology can mean cinemas themselves show movies differently (as is expected for James Cameron's Avatar, where many U.S. moviehouses are converting to the technology required to screen the film, shot in potentially revolutionary Stereoscopic 3D). This would mean the way we experience films will change, regardless of whether we buy a stereoscopic 3D camera ourselves. The effect of technology, like many other social phenomena (e.g. Got Milk? - catch phrases from ads that become everyday phrases), can permeate through society in silent and discreet ways.

So far, the speed of technological innovation has moved faster than lawmakers have been able to in regulating and stemming the flow of creativity and actual invention (which is what regulators are so adept at). Sometimes authorities have a case, as in Shephard Fairey's appropriation of an Associated Press image that became an iconic poster during Obama's campaign, as it turns out Fairey had lied about using the original source. Ironically, Obama probably has alot to thank Fairey for, and it's likely Associated Press wouldn't have cared had the image not become so lucrative (in money, political popularity etc) to everyone but the A.P. Photoshop makes it easy to appropriate, but just as easy to strip back and superimpose to find instances of copyright. Regulators, and large organisations for the forseeable future, are probably going to find it difficult to charge everyone who (possibly) uses some form of their work - why, because of technological speed.

Blogs, wiki's, everyone's an author, a critic with something important to say, as millions march into the bloggosphere armed with opinions and half-baked social theories (as we're part of the zeitgeist it's probably not our place to say whether this is good or bad) we challenge pillars of authority to catch up. A brilliant piece called A Writing Revolution by Denis G. Pelli & Charles Bigelow suggests that, like the age of universal literacy after the printing press, we're now entering a phase of universal authorship - that is, everyone is becoming a 'published' author. The internet has, naturally, accelerated this process to the point where it's estimated that 0.01 percent of the worlds population are authors (that is they have published a work that more than 100 people have viewed). This speed is so rapid, that we may expect everyone to publish by 2013. With all these blogs to read, all these opinions to consider, the millions more youtube videos to be uploaded, of course our time is going to go quickly - 2013 may prove to be the fastest year yet, perhaps so fast I won't even have time to discuss how fast it is.

An iconic print of Audrey Hepburn hangs slightly lopsided in the local cafe. She's handling a long-cigarette holder nonchalantly, gazing out into some other space, almost contemplative (let's imagine the sophisticated image fits her smarts). I'm sure many of you feel the same - that we haven't felt that expression ourselves for a while - or our years are moving too fast to notice.

Darfur and Green Avatar (not James Cameron's)

Press the circular button (the only physical button on the front). Touch, slide, tap to enter passcode (yes, I have a passcode) - ****. I'm concerned that waking up with this routine for the last 3 weeks as if I couldn't open my eyes without it is a prelude to some greater gadget/connectivity addiction. The iPhone in itself seems to link the ever-impressive advancements of mobile internet, with a primitive instinct of touch (tactile interaction) which is familiar to most of us from infancy. Watch a child, with their endless fascination for touching surfaces and holding onto things, throwing them around, tearing them up etc, and note the parallels with iPhone wielding yuppies from Sydney to L.A.

The iPhone thus signals the return of the inner child, and in some ways the worst aspects of this. As if baby boomers and some Gen X'ers didn't have enough ammunition for their critical analyses of Gen Y, with lifephone (or lifeline, or post-phone - whichever iPhone nickname you prefer) they can hyperbolically speak of our De-Generation with our short-attention spans, moving between conversations real and online, constant email access (you can now get push e-mail functionality) and addictive games such as Paper Toss or HoopsLite in the split seconds where we were devoid of stimulation before the lifephone, when all mobiles did was make calls, send messages, and play pixelated snake games.

The idea that there are now an endless stream of procrastination methods (let's be honest, that’s what most of the cool iPhone features are about) available via software advancements is nothing new, but there are some positives out there which will hopefully catch attentions and imaginations of the time-starved, overly stimulated (or entertained) consumers of online-all the time lifestyles (proviso added that I'm firmly planted in this group myself). The plight of civilians in Darfur has been well explored in niche academic environments in Western countries, approached with constant difficulty by the United Nations (who have perplexed many in claiming that the 'war is over') and received honourable mentions by George Clooney and Madonna. Although the celebrity factor of the latter is (in many situations) a sure-fire way to reach a mass audience for public sympathy/support, the complexity of Darfur's plight (including the number of state and non-state actors involved and regional, ethnic and religious factors) makes it difficult to package the cause and the action for neat mass consumption, which often means tapping into upper middle-class guilt for $$ that fund overhead (administrative) costs for many not-for-profit organisations.

Turning a viral idea for a cause into a mass display of support is great, and provides a sign of hope to cynical minds who may feel social networking simply allows individuals of Generation-Me to create a 3rd person pseudo-celebrity version of themselves in the virtual world. But once you've got support for the cause - then what? If 1 million twitter subscribers turn their Avatar (profile picture) green in support of an inadequate Iranian democratic system (as happened prior and since the recent 'election' in Iran) can we be resolved of any further action? What are the results of such widespread support? Well the answer, in the Iranian example, depends on who's talking (The issue and the protest are absorbing in their own right - in Kase Wickman's words 'The Iranian Revolution will not be Televised, It will be Twittered' - can cover at least 6 months worth blog entries). Some view the green movement as purely symbolic, one click and the 'supporters' can delude themselves into thinking they've done something, and move on with their lives in a 4WD, with a Big Mac meal and new iPhone in tow. The Air America Media website smacks its readers more directly 'One click is too easy. One click is not one life saved, one dollar donated, not one ounce of difference made. One click is nothing at all'. BC Politics takes the same sceptical stance, but uses the time honoured tradition of parody in suggesting that along with making our Twitter Avatars green, we should also do the following to show our support for Iran from Afar (among other things):

• Change your computer to Iran's time zone (+4:30 GMT).
• Write only in Persian.
• Grow a neckbeard.
• Paint your house green.
• Paint your baby green.

The list ends wryly with 'Cease thinking about Iran once the craze dies down' (for the complete list, and a quick, funny read to boot check BC Politics). On the other hand, the Green Twitter revolution has been a definite influence in the Iranian Government's decision to censor and ban certain webpages from view within the country (including Tehran). And as we all know from the many pop songs banned by churches and governments (see 'Only the Good Die Young', or anything by the 2 Live Crew) whenever something is banned by large and powerful institutions, the more inquisitive people become to seek it.

So, following this long digression, how has gathering mass-support in the age of new media helped advocates of Darfur (for awareness, if nothing else)? If hunger is the mother of invention, then software is at least the favourite son. Having recognised that gaining support for a cause is still a far cry from real action in troubled nations, building awareness is still a great place to start. Combining the badge of support/identity of Iran's Green Avatar with the interactivity (gameplay, if not touch) of the iPhone, is a fantastic web concept developed by mtvU (MTV's college Media Network) called Darfur is Dying (http://www.darfurisdying.com/). It is worth checking out, but is a great attempt at placing users in (virtual) situations familiar to Darfurian citizens living in constant fear of Janjaweed militias. The site is multilingual, and also provides constant exposure to the real message (detailing suffering and human rights abuses in the region), and ways to take real action. A definite goal, a real issue, a worthy cause, and a clear message. Amidst the clutter lies the clear.

For a good overview of the Darfur conflict, check out the BBC Sudan/Darfur Profile and the introduction by Global Security.org.

Discovering Home on YouTube

"We live in exponential times...."

- Karl Fisch, Scott McLeod in Globalization & The Information Age.

Yesterday I was down to one apple in the house. So I went out to the shop, and bought 20, enough to last a couple of weeks. From one apple to twenty in one day...exponential times indeed. In 2006 I had no Apple platforms in my direct existence. By 2008, I owned 4 (2 iPods, iPhone and some Apple music software), doubling my rate of uptake. Google search, and now Bing search, Wolfram Alpha and countless others, even search platform options themselves are increasing. So with all these facts, figures and information which are surely too much for anybody to absorb in a single lifetime, it's great to see attempts that put it all into context for our consumption via modes that best suit our attentionnally-challenged age.

One of the best I've come across is from a presentation made in Rome (which, being dated from 2008 might as well be ancient history now considering the video's theme) by Karl Fisch, titled Did You Know? 3.0. It contains veritable nuggets of enlightenment such as 'It is estimated that a week's worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century', before ending rather tantalisingly with the question 'So what does it all mean?'. Needless to say, the 5 minute clip of facts and figures is unable to answer the question, and I guess that's the point - does it mean anything? What is all this advancement if the Earth is going to heat up and dry up in 50 years, diminishing the very environment we have at once relied upon and abused in the name of civilisation?

These are questions examined in what is almost an accidental sequel to Did You Know? (at least it seems like that in my mind of fractured connections), in Yann Arthus-Bertrand's film Home, an exquisitely crafted project tracing the origins of human beings during the Earth's development, our substantial exploitation of the environment over the last century, and future directions required for conservation, and all through some of the most spectacular cinematography of natural landscapes and cityscapes you'll find (at least on YouTube - and for free at that!). Arthus-Bertrand, president of the GoodPlanet Foundation, is evidently a master of the environmental narrative, and unlike some other projects (Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth springs to mind) it balances the strong rhetoric of warning with an emphasis on hope and initiatives currently driving alternative methods of energy consumption.

The initial impact of the film is it gets one thinking about consumption, which for my immediate concern raised the question of why I bought 20 apples for myself when perhaps I could've done with about half that amount comfortably (the other 10 normally go bad before I get a crack at them anyway). I found myself in the same boat, or dwelling, as every greedy consumer of a megalopolis (not that Sydney is on par with Palm Springs or Las Vegas - 2 of the most resource intensive cities in the world) described by Arthus-Bertrand. This is something I intend to remedy, piece by inconsequential piece of daily living.

What links Home and Fisch's glorious tribute to technology and its uptake, is that the latter serves to show just what the impact of the former can achieve in terms of exposing critical issues to large audiences. Did You Know? mentions that to reach an audience of 50 million, radio took 38 years, TV managed it in 13 years, the Internet proved it could be done in 4 years, it took 3 years for the iPod to get there, and a quickfire 2 years for Facebook to register 50 million users. So imagine in the exponential times we live, a film on YouTube, with its millions of subscribers, the amount of exposure that can be gained for prominent issues affecting us all, and how many more could decide to go for 10 apples rather than 20.

More than 50% of the world's wealth sits in the hands of the richest 2% of our population, and 50% of the world's poor live in the most resource rich nations on Earth. Clearly there is something askew, and tipping the balance can begin with the minor thoughts of many, which can translate into the minor actions which in turn create major changes. This can be the strength of YouTube, and of our ever changing and expanding times. Home concludes with the narrator emphasising that it's 'too late to be a pessimist', and I would add that it's also too late to be a pacifist. Ultimately both point to the strength of a collaborative, online community - it's just difficult to find the most effective way to harness this community. Perhaps the answer to 'So what does it all mean?' lies somewhere within the large-scale action (hopefully positive rather than negative) that can result in these exponential times.

As the above rambling is unlikely to present anything that hasn't been mentioned before, and probably more eloquently, we'll move back into safer territory of humouring the minutiae of daily life at the next entry :). I would recommend sparing time to watch Yann Arthus-Bertrand's film, it was without doubt worth the 1.5 hours of my life it consumed, and for that the filmmakers cannot be blamed, as it is 'a carbon-offset movie'.

Memories, Search Engines, and Bar Cortona

This week, I decided to try something different, which brings me to the pleasant atmosphere of one of Sydney's best kept secrets, Bar Cortona in Homebush. We all have places of familiarity we visit when we meet friends i.e. a particular bar, a landmark, a movie theatre, or perhaps for those socially awkward types - a web forum. However, Cortona is a place that lends itself to circumstances which we're probably all finding more and more scarce - spending time alone without the ever lingering thought of work, entertaining company, outstanding tasks, seething rage about the constantly broken down ticket machines at Sydney train stations, and so forth.

Sitting on the neither small nor medium sized chairs, surrounded by the calming beige/orange pastels of the walls and the endearing, handmade jewellery and assorted home decorations - seashell photo frames, glass-blown cookie jars, a rooster carved from wood (I'm not sure who would buy that, but it works in here) - one can sit with a coffee, looking out the window on a Sydney winter which can typically include sun, rain and overcast within an hour, and think there is still a place to find a respite from living vicariously through Google and the Internet (where most of our social interactions are being recorded nowadays - or does this post now take that away as well?). The only gripe I have about this hallowed sanctuary is that the leisurely atmosphere seems to incite some form of juvenile Alzheimer’s among the new staff there.

The new guy at Cortona, a young scraggly looking kid (hair tossed about, face half-shaven, all in a prepared manner), always forgets my order. This is particularly irritating after the first 6 times, considering I've been going there for 4 years, and that my order is extremely simple (no soy-latte half sugar easy-on-the-froth with a spoon of cinnamon extra hot, or anything like that). Now these are not unrealistic expectations, when I say he forgets my order, I mean consistently only 5-10 mins after ordering he'll ask me, all uncertain tone, eyebrows tilted with an upward inflection at the end of the sentence 'What did you order again?'. Perhaps it's the puberty setting in, I know it's tough to think of anything other than girls at that age...maybe Neil Strauss can help.

After his most recent bout of memory lapse, I told him half-jokingly 'dude, you always forget my order', to which he replied 'I always get you confused with another guy that comes here, Pete...do you know Pete?’ The 'do you know Pete' bit was a weak lead to divert the conversation and perhaps provide him with some sort of excuse. I didn't know Pete, what's his last name? Pan, Sampras, Townshend, Wentz, Doherty? For all I know he could be the imaginary friend scraggly hair is giving my coffee to, while he forgets the real people sitting in the place. Imagination has a way of becoming hyperbolic when expectations aren't met, so I had this image in my head of a public announcement of scraggly hair announcing, Clinton-style 'I did not forget...that man's order'.

I'm not sure if there is a simple way to rectify this problem, and I doubt even Stephen Wolfram has the answer to that. I even asked the question to his brilliant new search website Wolfram Alpha. Although I couldn't find answers to complex human problems, before I knew it I was searching facts and figures of everything else, loving the idea of being able to 'compute' Michael Jordan's age to the day, and a moment later discovering the economic toll being wrought by Australia’s ageing population - as a percentage of GDP. With a single search entry, Wolfram produces a page of statistics, summaries and information as far as one is compelled to drill down into, needless to say it's a huge (and perhaps natural) step our conception of information search.

In his mesmerising novel The Shadow of the Wind Spanish author Carlos Ruiz Zafón describes the (fictional) 'Cemetery of Forgotten Books', a place containing all the books ever written, and the souls of their respective authors (seemingly a high-culture version of the Alice in Wonderland Library managed by Sir Cheshire Cat). It is not too inconceivable, with Wolfram Alpha, Google, Wikipedia, and perhaps Bing as repositories of all human knowledge attained over thousands of years, that 'real' books (as knowledge stores) will be confined to a lost cemetery, the top level perhaps becoming a popular place for university students to 'meet' - a combination of cemetery, shrine, nostalgia and the hormone-sharing taking place in today’s local libraries.

When we need an answer, we find search engines - whether this eventually helps us get an answer or leaves us more confused by choice is another question - which requires a search engine. Instantaneous access to so much knowledge - known as 'search overload' in industry parlance - will also have an interesting effect on our memories when we Gen-Y'ers reach older, riper ages (perhaps 100 will be the new 80 with increasing life expectancy). With so many answers available at the click of a button, what's the point of actually 'remembering' everything? Perhaps my answer to the scraggly kid dilemma is to post my order up on a website, with my name, throw in some metadata so it shows up early in search results, so he can type in 'what was his order - the guy that reminds me of Pete' and will come up with....my order! Sounds like a solution I will have to try out...but how am I going to remember it?

Now for some light entertainment, here's something I won't forget (for a week, at least).I'm sure you've all seen it, but you can't possibly get tired of seeing something superhuman like this. King James is 24 months, 5 days old today (thanks Wolfram).