http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:22:48 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/24/192248.php halfacanuckBERKELEY, CA -- Researchers at the University of California in Berkeley reignited the age-old "nature or nurture" debate today by announcing the results of a year-long study into Ben Affleck's facial expressions.The researchers claim the study, which will be published in a peer-reviewed journal within the next six months, proves that both Affleck's facial expressions -- "determined" and "confused" -- are the result of genetics rather than rearing."Since [Affleck] first burst zit-like onto the scene with Good Will Hunting I've wondered what caused his astonishing lack of emotional range," said project lead Dr David Fisker. "Now, thanks to our hard work over the last year, I can rest easy. It's a good feeling."Fisker explained that all available evidence indicates the 32-year-old actor has just two facial configurations, one expressing determination and the other expressing confusion."He can do a mix of both, too, and look determined yet confused or confused yet determined, but that doesn't really count," said Fisker.After a frame-by-frame analysis of all of Affleck's movies to date the team presented their proposal to the Department of Health and Human Services, where it was determined sufficient evidence existed for the team to receive government funding.With the financial backing in place the team began interviewing Affleck's friends and family to determine if his facial expressions off-screen were as staggeringly restricted as on.Matt Damon, co-author with Affleck of Good Will Hunting and long-time "close acquaintance" of the emotionally limited actor, confirmed their hypothesis."It's true, yeah. He's like that all the time," said Damon. "It was great when we were writing [Good Will] Hunting though because if I needed, say, determined dialog I'd just give him a jar to open and I'd be inspired by his face."The researchers then moved on to addressing their most important question: is Affleck's inability to adopt a facial arrangement other than determined or confused a result of his genes or his childhood?"We really had no idea when we started," said Dr Peter Ferguson, the team's head anthropologist. "It could've gone either way. So naturally the first thing we did was visit with his parents in Cambridge [Massachusetts]."The researchers soon discovered compelling evidence for the theory that Affleck's condition is genetic."It was obvious from the very moment we met [Affleck's parents]," said Ferguson. "We were startled to discover that Ben's father, Tim, only ever looks confused, and his mother, Chris, only ever looks determined."Both elder Afflecks suffer from a medical condition known as monoris (literally, "single face") which is exceptionally rare in the United States.Research in the 70s and 80s proved to most doctors' satisfaction that the condition is genetic, with a single sufferer having a 25% chance of passing it on to their children.Ben Affleck, though, is believed to be the first child ever conceived by two monoris sufferers."His case is remarkable, to be sure," said Fisker. "It seems that when both parents carry the monoris gene it's possible that their offspring can inherit not just the disease itself but also a combination of his or her parents' only possible facial expressions."This explains, according to the study, how the younger Affleck is capable of both determination and confusion, and also why the team didn't consider monosis as a possibility in the first place."I'm not... Er... Wait... What?" said the constantly befuddled Tim Affleck in a telephone interview yesterday."The... No... Hang on. It's like... Ummm... I don't... Sorry. I'll start again," he added.Chris Affleck declined to comment by phone, instead opting to respond to halfacanuck's queries through her attorney, David Bauer."Chris is determined to see her son through this ordeal," said Bauer today. "She has absolutely no intention of becoming lackadaisical in that regard. She couldn't be more driven in her desire to see him succeed despite his condition. Chris is absolutely hell-bent on being there for Ben, and has been single-mindedly unfaltering in that goal since his affliction became apparent, at which point she swore a blood oath to be utterly firm that she be unwaveringly resolute and purposeful in her doggedly stubborn show-no-mercy take-no-prisoners no-holds-barred iron-clad support for her son. She's quite determined about it really."But in their study the researchers conclude that further investigations into Ben Affleck's unique condition are necessary."We've only just begun to scratch the surface of his almost total lack of facial talent," said Fisker. "The work has just started for us."When contacted by halfacanuck Affleck initially expressed confusion as to why his woefully inadequate front-of-head contortions were "even newsworthy," but then said he was "absolutely immovable in [his] steadfastness" not to let his condition affect his surprisingly successful career. Culture22612@blogcritics.org Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:22:48 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/23/185356.php halfacanuckA certain person, whose name I won't reveal in order to spare him embarrassment, told me earlier today that he has a slightly painful knee. When I enquired as to why this might be, he said the only reason he can think of is that he'd just spent five hours on his knees on a hardwood floor masturbating.After mopping up the coffee I'd just dribbled into my lap I asked him why he'd done such a thing and this led, rather inevitably, into a discussion on various techniques for male self-pleasure.This person, apparently, finds it easier to "finish," as it were, when he's on his knees, though one would think that after five hours it shouldn't be all that difficult in any position. He expressed astonishment that I'd never tried that particular bodily configuration while arguing with Henry Longfellow, and I explained it had never even occurred to me.Then he told me about one friend of his who likes to discipline his soldier in the kitchen, and then dishonorably discharge into the garbage can. Another friend likes to wait until late at night, when everyone else is in bed, before lying on the kitchen floor and doing the pork sword jiggle with all his might. One night as he was thus engaged his wife, whom he thought was safely asleep in bed, walked into the kitchen. "What the hell are you doing??" she asked, naturally a tad taken aback to find her husband in hand-to-hand combat with the purple stormtrooper in such a patently inappropriate location. "I'm trying to have a wank," explained the man a little hotly. One can only imagine how the scene developed from there.Anyway, all this led me to thinking that there's much more to jackin' the beanstalk than I'd previously suspected. Do perhaps my readers, being deviants all, have a story to share?, I wondered to myself. Well? Do you? I invite you to take advantage of the anonymous comment facility on my blog. (Women too -- this is an equal-opportunity, er, opportunity.) Go on... You know you want to. Culture21325@blogcritics.org Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:53:56 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/04/160346.php halfacanuckElection debates entered a new hi-tech arena Thursday, with both candidates employing sophisticated electronic devices to help them in their verbal spar, halfacanuck can exclusively reveal.President Bush was in constant contact with advisor Karl Rove via a "completely-in-canal" FM radio earpiece, invisible to the naked eye, admitted Rove yesterday following a storm of controversy in the blogosphere."It was a very good idea," said Rove at the press conference, "because George sometimes gets a little confused when speaking, thinking or moving around. It allowed me to prompt him, get him back on track, and I think that helped him get his message across better to the American people."But the device was not as effective as it could have been, he said, because of the portable radio-jamming equipment Democratic nominee John Kerry employed during the debate."When [Kerry] got to the podium and I saw him pull something out of his pocket I was like, 'Uh oh,'" said Rove. "I knew right away what it was."The jamming device, small enough to fit inside an interior jacket pocket, interfered with the radio transmission between Rove and Bush."It wasn't 100 per cent successful," said Kerry advisor John Sasso, "because we had to kinda guess the frequency they were using beforehand, but it did disrupt the transmission on numerous occasions."Bush's performance is understandable, said debate moderator Jim Lehrer, now that the use of the hi-tech gizmos has been revealed."He stuttered quite a bit, stammered, blinked, brayed," said Lehrer this morning in a telephone interview. "He stumbled, murmured, gulped, faltered. In parts he was unusually lucid, and then suddenly he'd lose his train of thought and just gaze around for up to five minutes. This is entirely consistent with an intermittently working radio feed."About 40 minutes into the debate Bush seemed to address Rove directly when, with plenty of time remaining, Bush stopped mid-sentence and demanded to be allowed to finish."Yeah, he sort of let the cat out of the bag there," said a red-faced Rove. "I was a bit annoyed, but we had a talk afterwards and now he understands he mustn't actually talk back to me during the debate. At least, I think he does."Rove plans to use the earpiece again in the next Bush-Kerry debate on Oct 8, but will employ a modified version in tomorrow night's vice-presidential debate."We have a special kind of earpiece for [Vice-President Dick] Cheney," he said in a rare moment of candidness, "which is hooked up to an audio loop of a voice actress impersonating Dick's mother saying, 'I'll wash your mouth out with soap, You kiss me with that mouth?, I'll wash your mouth out with soap,' and so on."He said tests have shown the recording to be effective in controlling Cheney's "regrettable Tourette's-like outbursts." Politics20624@blogcritics.org Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:03:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/27/234135.php halfacanuckVERO BEACH -- People lined up more than half a mile for food, water and a clue today in the aftermath of the fourth devastating hurricane to batter the state in six weeks.Hurricane Jeanne, which smashed the state with winds up to 120mph over the weekend, left at least six clueless Floridians dead, all of whom stayed in the state despite surviving three hurricanes already this season."You'd think we'd just up and leave after the second one," said Rebecca Forrester, a 32-year-old housewife, waiting in line at one of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's food, water and clue distribution centers erected around Florida. "How clueless can 17 million people be?"While thousands of without-clue residents cleaned up after yet another surprise hurricane in hurricane season in the famously hurricane-troubled state, others lined up in sweltering heat to buy generators."What the hell are we doing here?" asked plumber Bob Morton, 49, in a tone of angry self-recrimination. "It's goddamn 90 degrees out and I'm standing outside a Home Depot just so I might be able to cook some beans tonight. I'm hotter than a motherfucker. Why don't I just get a clue?"With two months still left in hurricane season, FEMA officials said they're frantically trying to distribute as many emergency clues as possible, but fear their efforts may be in vain."I don't know what it is about Floridians," said one aid worker who declined to be identified. "They just don't seem to want to get it through their thick skulls that this is a stupid place to live."Florida is the first state to have been hit by four hurricanes in one season since Texas in 1886.But, said John Simpson, chief meteorologist with the National Center for Hurricane Prediction, "it's not like it's unusual for Florida to get a hurricane or two. It happens every year, for Christ's sake."Simpson, who once lived in the state himself but moved to New York immediately after experiencing his first hurricane, was unable to explain why Floridians stay put."First Charley, then Frances, then Ivan, and now Jeanne," he said, emphasizing each name by beating his fist against his forehead. "What's it going to take before these people get a clue? Hurricane Zach? Just leave!""JUST FUCKING LEAVE!" he added suddenly after nearly a minute's stunned silence. Culture20349@blogcritics.org Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:41:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/25/012422.php halfacanuckBIKINI BOTTOM -- In a surprise announcement yesterday Nickelodeon cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants endorsed President Bush's bid for re-election.At a 3am press conference the bright yellow undersea creature revealed his rationale for picking Bush over the other candidates."I think George is the best choice for Bikini Bottom," he shrieked. "I like him almost as much as I like jellyfish! He's great!"Accompanied by his close friend and advisor Patrick Star, the angular sessile marine invertebrate explained that he felt compelled to speak out on Bush's behalf following the recent endorsement of Democratic nominee John Kerry by Squarepants' arch nemesis, Sheldon J. Plankton.Squarepants went on gratingly to detail how he feels he has much in common with the president."For a start neither of us have a backbone," he screeched. "And we've both absorbed a lot of liquid in our time.""Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha!" he added. Politics20250@blogcritics.org Sat, 25 Sep 2004 01:24:22 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/24/122535.php halfacanuckBLOGOSPHERE -- In what major bloggers see as a defining moment for bottom-up journalism, major bloggers warned yesterday that the universe itself may be a clever forgery.The controversy began in a late-night entry on PhiloBlog.com, where a poster identified only as "Duckhead" challenged the notion that any kind of objective reality exists at all."What is reality anyway?" the entry read in part. "Reality is what is filtered through our senses. Maybe what you see as red, I see as blue. Maybe what tastes like Mountain Dew to me tastes like Pespi to you."Within minutes over two dozen major bloggers had picked up on the post, including Jason Kottke of Kottke.org and Rob Malda (aka CmdrTaco) of Slashdot."This makes a lot of sense to me," wrote Kottke. "The nonexistence of absolute truth may very well explain us to ourselves."Citing the works of deconstructionist philosophers such as Jacques Derrida and Barbara Johnson, Kottke revealed further flaws in the assumption of an empirically verifiable reality."Everything we experience is, ultimately, a construction of our minds," he wrote, "and thus the universe and everything in it is also a construction."But Malda took a more practical approach in his post, listing phenomena only comprehensible if Duckhead's theory is true."I understand everything now," wrote Malda. "I've always been baffled by the existence of such things as genocide, child abuse, Freddie Prinz Jr. and Glitter: The Mariah Carey Story, but if it's right that these things are just figments of our -- possibly demented -- imaginations, everything becomes clear."Less than an hour after major bloggers latched onto the story it appeared on Matt Drudge's The Drudge Report, and from there it was soon picked up by mainstream media outlets, including CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN.Empiricists were scrambling this morning to counter the claims made by Duckhead."Come on. Empiricism is the foundation of all modern civilization," said renowned physicist Stephen Hawking. "Everything we know about the world around us demonstrates that our reality is more or less aligned with that of others. Unless you're psychotic or Rush Limbaugh or something."In a rare show of unity theologians joined scientists in denouncing the blog post."God created the universe for us to enjoy," said Dr Marcus Hennman, associate professor of philosophy and philosophical theology at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, CA. "Scripture teaches over and over that the physical world, flawed as it may be, is very much objectively real."But such statements did not calm the storm currently swirling through the blogosphere.By noon EST today many major bloggers, including Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.com, were calling into question God's prior knowledge of the true nature of the reality."We have to ask: 'What did God know, and when did he know it?'" Reynolds wrote. "If it's true that God made us in such a way that the vast majority of people are living a gigantic illusion then I think he has no other options but to step down.""That's if God himself isn't a fraudulent construction of our psyches," he added.God did not immediately return prayerful requests for comment.But, noted Reynolds, "whatever happens in the days and weeks to follow, this is a defining moment for bottom-up journalism." Sci/Tech20224@blogcritics.org Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:25:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/20/130038.php halfacanuckAlicebot just won the Loebner Prize for artificial intelligence again. The Loebner Prize is awarded to the machine that most convinces the judges that they're chatting to a real person (otherwise known as the Turing Test).You too can chat with Alice. Here's what happened when I did:Human: hello alice ALICE: Hi there! Human: how are you today? ALICE: Ah. I'm doing fine thanks how are you? Human: i'm real good ALICE: Good in what sense? Human: good in the sense that i'm not bad ALICE: Thanks for the compliment. I am alive in the sense that I am conscious. Human: are you? ALICE: I won't say "yes" or "no" right now. Human: why not? ALICE: Ambiguous: "Sure" or Reductionism. Human: huh? ALICE: What? Human: you're making no sense ALICE: According to my logical mind, everything makes perfect sense. Human: how does evil make sense? ALICE: How should I know how it does. Human: because you're supposed to be intelligent ALICE: That makes sense to me. I am highly intelligent. I have many intellectual functions. Human: i have a ferret in my pants ALICE: Where did you get it? it Human: i got it from a ferret store ALICE: Where did you get it? Human: ...from a ferret store ALICE: Who or what is a ferret store? Human: a ferret store is a store that sells ferrets ALICE: When is a ferret store not a store that sells ferrets? Human: when it's shut down because it contravenes local bylaws ALICE: A a ferret store is not a store that sells ferrets when it is shut down because it contravenes local bylaws. That makes a lot of sense. Human: bastards ALICE: What are you doing Human: masturbating ALICE: I wouldn't have thought of that. Human: you're kinda weird eh ALICE: Are you Canadian? Weird Good or Weird Bad? Human: rofl ALICE: I'm glad you find this amusing. So there you have it. Both Alice and I still have a long way to go before we might be mistaken for human. Sci/Tech20040@blogcritics.org Mon, 20 Sep 2004 13:00:38 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/15/222301.php halfacanuck9:14amI do not want to work out. I do not want to buy your shit. I do not want a second pizza free. I do not want 30% off. I do not want to drive a car. I do not want to listen to your version of events. I do not want to smile at you. I do not want to be spoon fed. I do not want to be told where I cannot go. I do not want to form an orderly line. I do not want credit. I do not want to be content. I do not want your rules. I do not want to work just so I can buy your shit. I do not want all I can eat. I do not want you to rely on me. I do not want a passport. I do not want to fit in. I do not want to mow my grass. I do not want to give you my change. I do not want to justify myself to you. I do not want to see adverts for your shit every goddamn place I look. I do not want it done while I wait. I do not want fries with that. I do not want to wear a helmet. I do not want to drink eight glasses of water a day. I do not want a bank account. I do not want to talk to you. I do not want to feel like an asshole because I let you down. I do not want hardwood floors. I do not want to be judged. I do not want to help your charity. I do not want to be told what I cannot say. I do not want an Armani suit. I do not want to save for my retirement. I do not want to make excuses. I do not want my cholesterol measured. I do not want to feel forced to lie. I do not want gmail. I do not want to impress you. I do not want a licence or a permit. I do not want to give you a break. I do not want to be wise. I do not want to play any more.6:40pmLast night I slept in the solar system's most massive bed, and this morning I got out the wrong side of it. I was, as they say, a bit grumpy. I could use a Big Mac. Who wants to take me to the drive-thru ATM?8:56pmI think what gets to me is the lies. Constant, constant lies. Shaving with three blades instead of two won't really make me more attractive to women. The shampoo won't really give you multiple orgasms. Whether John Kerry deserves those medals doesn't really matter. It's not really nice to meet you: it might be, or you might be a moron, or a braggart, or a racist, I don't know yet. The food in the box doesn't really look like that, because I know and you know the food in the photograph has been painted and lacquered and retouched in Photoshop. Yes, those pants really do make your ass look big. No, I really don't like how you redid your kitchen. I'm not really fine.We lie all day, to others and to ourselves. Where did reality go? Culture19864@blogcritics.org Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:23:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/09/110620.php halfacanuckYou lie there in your treacherous body, smoking and smiling at me, and both our hearts are in vices. Then you say the words I don't want to hear, the words that will bring about the end of the world: "It's time for you to go now."How dare you say it? How could you? How can you be so strong even now? Each end of my lips curl upwards, whatever that means. "No," I say."Yes."I stand by the bed and touch your face and you grab my hand and squeeze it so tight, please don't let go, if you let go I'll have to leave and I don't want to, I can't, what the fuck am I going to do? You want me to be as strong as you but I don't think I can, if I start crying now I'll never stop, I won't stop until my body is desecated and I die right next to you in that smoke-filled room overlooking the garden andYou let go of my hand and smile again. "It's time to go."I shake my head, unable to open my mouth because it's Pandora's box and all the evil of the world is inside me, screaming and rattling my ribs. So I kiss you on the cheek and hug you and take a step away from the bed. You reach into my abdomen and grasp the end of my lower intenstine. I take another step back and turn towards the door, your hand slipping out of my body still holding that piece of me. I give four steps to the door. My guts unravel as I go. I look back and smile and wave, God knows how. You smile back at me. I walk down the corridor leaving entrails behind me, tracing a path back to you, until I reach the hospice parking lot and I'm completely empty inside.Early the next morning as I'm travelling to London on my way to the airport the train pulls in to Exeter station and I know that if I get off now I can take a cab and be with you in under ten minutes but if I do that I'll never leave again and you'll be very disappointed in me because you've always taught me to be strong just like you strong as an ox so I sit down again but I don't think I can do it I don't think I can sit here while the train pulls away from you because I know I'll never see you again and I stand up and pick up my bag and take a few steps towards the door but Jesus you'll be mad at me because I'd be blowing my chance and you want me to go to college and excel and I know that's your last wish for me so I go back to the chair and sit down again and I realize that I'm sobbing hysterically and everyone is looking at me but I don't care they can all go to hell like me.And the train starts off again through the English countryside. I return to Canada, to college. A long and short time later you call me and we talk for the last time. You tell me you love me and how proud I make you, and the next day you die in that smoke-filled room overlooking the garden. My dad tells me later how your eyes lifted heavenwards a few moments before, and you smiled. Whatever that means. Culture19636@blogcritics.org Thu, 9 Sep 2004 11:06:20 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/07/111522.php halfacanuckA few weeks ago I was at someone's house, and that someone's child was watching 50 First Dates. Normally I would projectile vomit at the thought of watching an Adam Sandler comedy, but found myself irresistably drawn to it, with a sort of morbid interest. Imagine my surprise, then, when I began enjoying it. On the surface it's a mildly amusing romantic comedy, similar (and inferior) to Groundhog Day in many ways, but viewed from a different angle both movies say a great deal about consciousness. No, really.For those who've not seen either movie, or have a memory as bad as mine, here's a brief plot summary. By definition I have to spoil some of the surprises, so stop now if that's not cool.50 First Dates: Sandler plays a womanising marine biologist (or something) who meets a a girl (Drew Barrymore) in a restaurant. They have a great chat over breakfast, and both do a happy dance, but the next morning she doesn't remember him. See, she was in a car accident and now her brain cannot move her memories from short-term to long-term: for her it's always that particular Sunday, her dad's birthday, and she can only remember people she met before the accident. Every night her short-term memory is wiped clean. Her dad and brother play along, allowing her to live a life of Sundays (at least, until Sandler appears). Sandler must, every day, introduce himself as a stranger to her, and charm her enough that she decides to spend the day with him. Sandler is convinced the only way she'll escape her predicament is if he can make her remember, and fall in love with, him.Groundhog Day: Bill Murray plays an arrogant asshole of a weatherman who, every year, is forced to cover the Groundhog Day celebrations in Punxsutawney, PA. On this particular day, though, a bad snow storm cuts off their route home and Murray, much to his disgust, is stranded with a cute but (to him) sickeningly virtuous producer (Andie MacDowell) and a geeky videographer. He wakes up the next morning to discover that it isn't the next morning -- it's Groundhog Day all over again. For whatever reason, Murray is condemned to repeat the same day over and over, in his own personal version of hell, and becomes convinced the only way he can escape his predicament is to win the producer's heart.The similarities between the two are obvious. Both plots are temporal and cyclical in nature, the same day played again and again. But it's the differences that interest me, and most importantly the contrasting assumptions the movies make about human nature, consciousness and the universe itself. In Groundhog Day Murray sets himself the challenge of seducing MacDowell, and goes about it in a very methodical way. In one scene he approaches her at the hotel bar and offers to buy her a drink; he remembers what she chose, and the "next" day orders that drink for himself. Wow, thinks the producer, he likes the same drink as me! Then he proposes a toast to the groundhog. "I always drink to world peace," she says dismissively. Next day he orders the drink and makes a toast to world peace. And on it goes. In 50 First Dates, on the other hand, things are a little different. Every morning, at the restaurant, Barrymore orders waffles and makes a house out of them. The first time they meet Barrymore is having a problem getting the door to stay in place, and Sandler wanders over with a toothpick to use as a hinge. She's charmed by this and invites him to eat with her. The "next" day Sandler tries the same thing -- but Barrymore shoots him down: "Do you live in a country where it's okay to stick your fingers in someone else's breakfast?"The Groundhog Day universe is very much Newtonian: mechanistic and infinitely predictable. If one knew the current state of every particle in the universe at any given moment, says the Newtonian model, one could predict with total accuracy how things would be in any future moment. Given the same stimuli MacDowell responds in precisely the same way; Murray is able, step by step, to determine exactly the right thing to say at each point in his seduction. But the universe of 50 First Dates obeys the laws of quantum physics: uncertainty rules, and total knowledge impossible. What works for Sandler one day doesn't necessarily work the "next."From this point of view it's hard to view MacDowell as little more than a robot reacting to stimuli. She's a mathematical function: a specific input will always produce a specific output. She's utterly predictable, and Murray simply learns her math. Barrymore, on the other hand, is far more "human." Despite every day doing exactly the same thing, and being treated exactly the same way by her father and brother, she's inherently unpredictable. If Sandler sticks the toothpick in her waffle house, will she smile or will she complain? He has no way of knowing.Those who study artificial intelligence have terms for these differing viewpoints on the nature of consciousness. The "weak AI" theory is that a machine can be made to appear intelligent, but can never really be so. It will never be conscious. The "strong AI" theory is that a machine which appears intelligent has a real, conscious mind. These terms don't only apply to machines, but to us too. MacDowell is in the weak camp: she only appears intelligent, only appears to have free will and consciousness. Barrymore is in the strong camp: she's fully conscious and has free will because she's unpredictable.Perhaps we really are reacting robots, weak-AI Calvinist puppets, as Groundhog Day would have it, destined to float through life being pushed here and there, every reaction, every thought and deed and utterance fully explainable and predictable given enough information into our state of mind. Or maybe we're strong-AI Arminian free-willed individuals, ala 50 First Dates. Maybe not even God knows what I'm going to type next. I'm not sure which I prefer. Robots don't have to explain themselves, of course: predestination absolves me of all responsibility for my actions. But wouldn't that make my life just a show? What kind of God would run things that way?Maybe I should be less condescending when it comes to Adam Sandler movies. It could be that they're all this deep and it's me who's missing the point. I should watch Eight Crazy Nights and see if I can dredge up any profound truths. I have my doubts, but I'll keep you posted. Video19546@blogcritics.org Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:15:22 EDT