Cool Looking Keyboards

I'm not sure there's been a cooler keyboard than this one...ever. It's hard to make out in the picture, but this is a keyboard just like you have plugged into your computer right now. It has 113 keys that help you make your emails, access the web, order your online movies, and hack government web sites, but this has something that yours doesn't (unless you already possess this keyboard, and then you're just cooler than I am).

Every single key has its own screen. That's right. 113 tiny screens display what each key does based on whatever you're doing right now. Your keyboard has its letters in uppercase all the time. Well, this keyboard has them in lower cae unless you hold down the shift key, at which time it changes them all to uppercase. It has a series of customizable keys that have maybe the temperature or time, or the song you're playing through iTunes at the moment.

You can even change the look of the keyboard through the software on the computer. It has some USB ports to plug in extra stuff (because a PC never has enough USB ports). You can customize each key to do something and the screen will reflect that function.

What's that? Why don't I have one? Well, that the only downside. If you want this beauty, it'll cost you. Cost you dearly. This baby is nearly $1600.

Hey, don't look so sad. You can drool over it more if you go here:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/9836/

The other item I want to mention is also a keyboard, but this one is way non-traditional. Check this out:

Yeah, it's projecting the keyboard with a laser onto a solid surface. You use it by typing into the projection. It's intent is for use in bluetooth enabled devices like palmtops or blackberrys where there is an interface for an external keyboard. It even has simulated clicking sounds as you type, and it can handle speeds approahing that of a traditional keyboard. No denying this is one cool little toy.

This one won't totally break the bank though. It'll only run you $150. Hey, it's on sale!

Another link to drool over if you want to:

http://www.thinkgeek.com/computing/input/8193/

DragonForce: Are These Guys Human?

Some judge humanity by deeds and heart, while others prefer a more scientific approach. Some believe it is our relationships to others that make us truly human, while some would prefer to classify us as mammals with certain traits common to others of our species. It is this latter version that I would really like to talk about here in relation to a particular band that I occasionally listen to (every time it crops up on my iPod). This band is called DragonForce.

DragonForce is classified under power metal or even better, speed metal due to their methodology of musical delivery. The metal designation simply means that their style has an emphasis on drums and guitars while the speed means they play very, very fast. But of the bands that like to play fast, these characters are about the fastest and most persistent in their neverending rapid tempos. 

If you have or know someone who has Guitar Hero III, then you have probably heard of DragonForce. They have the notorious reputation of having the most difficult song across all of the released Guitar Hero franchise, both before and after III -- a song called Through the Fire And Flames. I was actually kind of happy when I heard that DragonForce was going to have a song on the game, and only slightly bummed when I learned it was dead last in the lineup (meaning you have to finish the game to unlock it).

Well, I found out why it was dead last about as quick as everyone else did. It's insanely fast and difficult. The GH games usually have a quip of some kind before each song, and it changes at random. But if you select Through the Fire and Flames on expert, it only says "Good Luck." Consistently. Every time. 

So let's think about these guys behind the music. Are they human? I have my doubts. The drummer is a freaking metronome behind them, and I was surprised to find out there was just one guy back there pounding away because his beat was so consistent and so fast that I still have trouble believing it (but those live videos do show him going after it by himself). And the guitar players -- holy cow! I've seen them on videos as well, and the way they zip up and down those strings is unreal.

And the singer...meh. Ok, that's conceivable.

So these players, if they aren't human, what else could they be? I'm left with only two choices if they aren't aliens. They could be robots. Robots would be capable of speed and consistent, untiring rhythm such as they demonstrate. That's sort of plausible (more plausible than the idea that they exist in this realm of reality). 

The other possibility is that they're vampires. Consider that their profession takes them out at night. They are impossibly fast. They would need to retain their creativity. It makes perfect sense. Now I'm not sure on what kind of vampire they are since fiction messes with reality, and let's face it, we really don't know how dramatised the vampire element is. But if there's any truth to it, then DragonForce must be vampires. That's the only explanation for the inhuman precision in impossibly fast tempos that they play in.

Now, I don't know much about aliens, but if they could get here, maybe they took on human forms and are playing for the populace hoping to woo them into submission before a large scale global attack. I think that's as plausible as everything else, don't you?

Brisket Salad and Meat Dressing

Had a couple of amusing occurrences recently, and the first one actually occurred at dinner this past Saturday at a local barbecue place. We go out every weekend (almost) with The Engineer, and then do something afterward (which recently has been go home and play video games or watch a movie). It's fun to hang out with my brother and gives the princesses time with their uncle and vice versa. We all have a great rapport together.

Anyway, there at the barbecue joint we overhear a conversation that (let's be honest) was very amusing and very Oklahoma. I'm sure they actually have this item on the menu, but not being a salad person, I've never paid attention, and though the Queen does like salad, I guess she's never ventured to that part of their menu. At the table near ours, we heard the waitress say, "Did you want sliced or chopped brisket on your brisket salad?"

We all looked at each other, the question on our faces: did we just hear that right? Makes me wonder if they douse that brisket salad in barbecue sauce. Why not? I've heard of chicken on salad and I know a buffet we hit in Tulsa has cold steak pieces on the salad bar, so meat on the salad isn't unheard of, by any means. I'm sure the brisket salad is delicious.

It reminded me of a time when we were also talking about some down home Okies and the idea of "meat dressing" came up. What is meat dressing? Why, chili of course. Who wouldn't want their side salad (because it's healthy) covered in meat dressing? After all, you gotta have your protein with lunch. 

To round out this post about food, you know those emails and such with the goofy church bulletins posts? Things like, "At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What is  Hell?" Come early and listen to our choir practice" and "Barbara remains in the hospital and needs blood donors for more transfusions.  She is also having trouble sleeping and requests tapes of Pastor Jack's sermons." Well, you have to wonder about who proofreads these things and how it managed to slip by. It's no surprise that goofs do happen. After all, churches write their own material, and there's rarely a need to edit it or have someone else go over it. After all, it's not likely to be offensive, right?

Well, the Queen helps the church preschool with their calendars, and on one week, they had a topic of Noah's Ark. So on one day, they had "Noah and the Ark" followed by a study of the letters (I guess), and the odd topic of "Cooking: Noah & the Animals." The Queen went ahead and shot them back an email asking if they really wanted to say that. Clearly they weren't going to talk about Noah cooking the passengers of his boat, but the implication was out there.

She got back a rapid email with a rewording and a thanks for catching that. I mean, they wouldn't want to be accused of something like this: "Announcement in the church bulletin for a National Prayer & Fasting Conference: The cost for attending the Fasting & Prayer conference includes meals." Now, would they?

Follow-Up

So at my place of employment, we have this process called a follow-up. It's relatively new, and has a good underlying principle: maintain contact with a client on a regular basis until the issue is resolved. That's good, right? I mean, you don't want someone to be forgotten and their issue left by the wayside. That's what caused a lot of dissatisfaction in the past, we're trying to move ourselves into a position to have a special certification, and part of that certification is keeping these follow-ups. This is admirable.

However, there is a sort of black lining to this that unfortunately allows clients the potential of feeling blown off even when they are called. I was listening this morning to the noise around me, and I overheard follow-ups being taken care of for someone who is out of the office today. You see, the rule about follow-ups has no exceptions (which is why I make sure and not schedule follow-ups on day when I won't be here), and this means someone else must pick up and work your follow-ups in the event that you don't show. Again, that should translate to a good thing.

But, the follow-ups I heard going on for this Person-Who-Is-Out (PWIO) that went something like this:

"Hi, I'm just following up on a ticket for PWIO, and I just wanted to let you know that this issue is still being researched ... No, I don't have any further information for it ... No, she's out today, and I'm just doing her follow-ups ... Yeah, if you have any questions about this, you can give her a call when she's in ... No, I'm not sure when that is, but you can call her tomorrow .. Okay, thanks."

I'm guessing the person sighed heavily since the call did little more than waste about 2 minutes of their day to tell them absolutely nothing, and said ok, I'll just give her a call tomorrow then. My question is why call someone if you have no information to give them? Typically, these tickets should (yeah, should being the real opertative word here) have some reason for the follow-up or some reason that the ticket is still open and required that future contact. 

How could this be salvaged? Well, first this caller could have looked at the ticket, and tried to either decipher an answer or do whatever is left to be done. But then, that would require work and the person I overheard doesn't do work, so that's out of the question. Second, if there were something in the ticket to give, they could have at least read that info to give them some kibble to much on, but that would require the person who left the ticket open to have noted some kind of update in the ticket, and most people around here don't give play-by-plays in their ticket notes (like I actually do, although I don't do it for other people -- I note my tickets heavily because otherwise I'll forget what I'm supposed to do on it) so that's out too.

So the easiest solution would have been a re-word of the conversation to make it more of an out of office update as opposed to any kind of true follow-up. It would go like this:

"I'm just calling to let you know that PWIO is out sick today, and so they won't be able to get in touch with you today on this issue." 

That would be followed up with some sort of friendliness about when the person could get back to them, and wouldn't sound like "I'm an incompetent twit who is blindly calling this list of crap I don't want to do anyway, and don't you dare ask me anything." 

But that just hearkens me back to a line from Toy Story: "If the boot fits..."

Saw

I finally watched Saw V, the most recent installation of the Saw franchise that began only back in 2004, and has released one movie per year ever since. They've overtaken the Friday the 13th franchise which managed one movie per year for the first three (80, 81, and 82), but missed 83 before releasing the "Final Chapter" in 84.

The first Saw movie is, in a nutshell, one of the best psychological thrillers I've ever seen, and if you can stomach the graphic nature of the torture scenes, it's incredible to watch. As we've moved through the sequels, it turns into a mixed bag of sorts. The movies have a storyline that not only runs through them all right up to this fifth one, but it criss-crosses them and flashbacks to during and before the previous films. This fifth film had flashbacks to events prior to the opening scenes of the first movie.

And therein, in my opinion, is where the strength of this franchise lies (along with its priceless and legendary twists). It's a story that builds and builds through its sequels more fully defining the characters we've already met, their lives, and the events surrounding the films we thought we knew. The first movie opens up with two men in a room and moves through a series of flashbacks building to that event. Each film has added to that first event filling out more and more what head to it, and how certain things were put into place. Items that seemed of no importance or of strange placement suddenly fall into the limelight and light is shed onto them. This applies not only to obvious things, but other things that seem trivial.

And then there are the twists (and revelations in some cases). I will say that the twist in five was not as dramatic as the other four, but it wasn't bad. I won't describe them because it would take too long to realize the significance. But I didn't see the first four coming at all. The first one hooked me completely. I mean, the movie was brutal to watch -- beyond cringeworthy, but that final twist was out of nowhere and completely sensible (not to mention the two that came just before it). The second film zinged us with three little surprises all at once, and again, I was floored. The second film had a whole plot that was dubious at best, but it played into the final twist, no doubt.

Three was more of an inevitability followed by a surprise. Four zinged us yet again with two rather big surprises. Five played fair and yet played right into our bad guy's hands perfectly. I only saw through one plot point, but a larger piece brewed in the background and was well done also.

What most people remember about Saw, however, are also the hardest parts to stomach: those fabulous traps. These traps are only in part torture devices because an ideal Jigsaw trap provides its victim a chance of escape and ties into a weakness of that person's character. A person will only fail a trap if they cannot overcome their fear or weakness and play Jigsaw's game. They will also fail if they panic. Failure equals death in every case, and success often leaves a scar, but Jigsaw believes that scar is their rehabilitation and that they will remember that lesson for the rest of their lives. However, in the franchise, the traps have only yielded two (possibly four) legitimate survivors. The rest were unable to play their games, and they died.

You do have to have a strong stomach at times to watch the series because it gets very, very graphic in regards to the brutality of some of the traps, and the moviemakers do an exceptional job at making those physical effects very realistic. But if you can make it through that part, the horror is only in the brutality as it plays out as more of a sinister crime drama than any kind of horror flick.

The fifth film provided yet more info into the backstory of everything else and also served to move the series forward by changing the characters even more, bringing in fresh meat, and giving us a few unanswered questions that will plague us for the sixth film scheduled to come out, again, in October. Will that be the end, or can it continue indefinitely? Only time will tell (and whether Saw 6 effectively ends the story or not).