So my wife overheard me talking to a friend about kernel extensions in Mac OS X (files that allow the Mac operating system to interface with hardware components and other things). She didn’t know what we were talking about, but she wanted to be a part of the conversation anyways. She sent me this text from across the house while I was talking. I am so proud.

Image by LynchMob10-09.

I would bet that neither you, nor anyone else you know, has ever been actually hacked. I know many who were socially engineered though…

Note from Matt: As someone who has had his info socially engineered in the past, I can really feel for Mat’s situation. This article is in no way a knock on him, but I feel his situation presents an event that pushes this issue into the light.

Yesterday a read an article by Mat Honan of Wired. It documents in detail how his Apple, Google, Twitter, and Amazon accounts were recently compromised. His Apple devices were remotely wiped, his personal data was lost, and his entire digital livelihood was shaken at its foundations.

According to Mr. Honan, he was “hacked”.

You have probably never been, and probably never will be, “hacked”

I hear this word tossed around all over the web these days. Did someone take over your Facebook account? You must have been hacked! Did you start receiving loads of spam email out of the blue? Hackers must have dunnit! Someone gained access to your Xbox Live account and started spending your money? Those hackers are ruthless! I understand what Mat Honan went through on a smaller scale, as my Xbox Live account was taken over by someone many years ago when I ran a popular Halo web comic called Halo Babies. Unlike Mr. Honan’s unfortunate story, this person gained access to my popular Xbox Live account to phish info from other users and to buy content using my credit card.

How did this person gain access to my account? The fault was as much mine as it was his. On my part, I provided far too much information on the web than I realized. The WHOIS for my website listed my current address and phone number (something I didn’t even realize was public before this all went down), and my email address and other personal information was available in my forum profile on HaloBabies.net. The phisher took this information, and after around eight calls to Xbox support, gained access to my information through tech support agents providing him with little bits of my personal info.

So what exactly is phishing? Wikipedia has a great definition: “Phishing is attempting to acquire information (and sometimes, indirectly, money) such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication.” What happened to Mat was not technically phishing, as I will explain below. Hacking is defined by wikipedia as a ”means of finding out weaknesses in a computer or computer network…” Many other definitions are similar, with Dictionary.com calling it an action “to break into (a server, Web site,etc.) from a remote location to steal or damage data”. 

What happened to Mat and myself was far from hacking, but it also was technically not phishing either.

Remember when Sony’s account servers were broken into, and thousands of username, passwords, and credit card numbers were stolen? That was hacking. Someone had to exploit a backdoor or other vulnerability in Sony’s firewalls, server security, and more. They then physically access the data and copied it to their computer to use for their own end. Sony was hacked. When someone calls tech support pretending to be you, they aren’t “hacking” anything. They are socially engineering your data and identity to fool a larger company or service provider into thinking they are you.

Consequently, the person who performs these fraudulent actions is not a hacker, but rather a social engineer. There are all kinds of types of social engineers, from those who use real phishing scams over email and chat, to others who use similar tactics over the phone. Sure, many of these people might actually be skilled at hacking as well, but hacking and social engineering are two different fields, skills, etc.

Phishing is the act of pretending to be a larger company to take advantage of its users. Fake emails to “reset” a user password or offering special content and deals if the user signs in at a specific site are not uncommon in phishing scams. These are people who pretend to be a large company to trick the individual user. However, in both mine and Mat’s stories, we were preyed on by someone who pretended to be the individual user in order to trick the large company. This is much closer to reverse-phishing, or rather, social engineering.

I’ll admit, saying “my Facebook got socially engineered!” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, but it’s the truth. Perhaps saying your account was reverse-phished or “engineered” sounds better. Either way, we need to call this stuff what it is, and hacking it is not.

Why do I care?

We live in a society that does everything it can to avoid taking responsibility for its actions. Spill hot coffee on yourself? Why not sue McDonald’s? Too lazy to turn down the volume on your iPod yourself? Sue Apple! Hacking is generally not something that the standard end-user can avoid. Sure you can install consumer firewalls on your PC, but a skilled hacker will know a dozen ways to compromise them. All that said, let’s stop kidding ourselves. Who would ever actually want to hack your computer? Unless you’re storing high-level corporate secrets on your un-encrypted hard drive, I bet the answer is no one.

However, becoming a victim of social engineering is something you can avoid. I was at fault when my Xbox Live account was stolen, and Mat Honan was at fault when his various accounts were taken from him. Mr. Honan may have used the wrong terms when referring to the tragedy the happened to him, but he does not shirk any responsibility. He is very clear that had he been more careful about what information he shared online, the issue could have been avoided.

When I hear someone say “OMG my Facebook account got hacked,” it’s always with the attitude that they did nothing wrong, and that some random stranger just decided to torment them for some reason. There is no responsibility taken by the user at all, and they live in mystery as to why someone would “hack into Facebook” to steal their data. It is a form of shedding any responsibility for something that could have easily been avoided, and that bugs me.

It’s a long shot, but perhaps if we start using proper terminology to describe these identity attacks people will feel a more urgent need to double-check the information they share publicly. From my discussions with internet users, both novice and experienced, there is a common theme of feeling completely helpless from “hackers who are out there roaming the web for victims.” Almost no one I have spoken to has said anything about steps they can take to secure their own information. If we present realistic dangers in realistic terms for average users, instead of using terms that have been twisted and over-glorified over the years, maybe some light bulbs will go off. If we keeping telling everyone they’re getting “hacked” at every turn, people will continue to feel helpless, and the scum of the internet who facilitate social engineering and phishing scams will keep prevailing. If there’s no way to fight them, why bother?

Hackers are a tough enemy, and very difficult to stop without advanced technical skills and software. However, social engineers are generally no different from you or me, with a bit of extra insight into how various social sites and companies work. Is it too much to ask that we stop glorifying these people as “hackers”? The title connotes an undue sense of accomplishment to these people despite most of them having very little experience actually hacking anything. The less sexy it is to be a social engineer, the less kids will strive to be one, and the less scary their tactics will seem to average users.

At least that’s the hope.

/rant

BAMAN BAMAN BAMAN BAMAN BAMAN BAMAN… (sorry this was late!)

Matt and Asia love movies and games, and watch/play most of them together. They figured they would post both of their opinions for movies side-by-side to provide both a male and a female perspective. These reviews won’t ever have numbered scores at the end, or a series of stars. We would prefer you just read the article and decide for yourself! NOTE: Spoilers are contained in [Spoiler:TEXT] brackets.

What I Really Liked

She said: Obviously, Batman. I mean, c’mon. Who doesn’t? Am I right? Also, Morgan Freeman. Enough said. Seriously though, all of the actors in this film were absolutely phenomenal!  I always love seeing Joseph Gordon-Levitt (although I will always remember him as Tommy from 3rd Rock From The Sun). [SPOILER: (Kinda) I totally called him being Robin once I saw him, and I think he is perfectly cast for Nightwing in what looks like another series of movies.] I thought Tom Hardy was an excellent Bane and I liked that he sounded like Deckard Cain From Diablo. Ra’s Al Ghul has always been one of my favorites since the beginning of the series. Also, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman… Basically the actors are really what made this film as great as it was (and everyone else who worked on it, of course). And I loved the last 10 minutes or so of the movie with all it’s little twists.

He said: Alfred. I can never get me enough Michael Caine, and scenes with him were by far some of the most emotional the movie had to offer. I also really liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt, even though he felt kind of rushed into his role as a new main character in the movie. Of course, Morgan Freeman is awesome is almost any movie he’s in, and this was no exception. As for the movie itself, the stakes were much higher, the action was much easier to follow (no more Michael Bay syndrome), and the ending wrapped things up well, with a well-foreshadowed ending teaser and great little twist.

What I Sorta Liked

She said: Anne Hathaway made a much better Catwoman than originally expected and I thought she did a really great job. Although I would have picked maybe Natalie Portman to play the roll. I think she looks more the part with her cat-like eyes. I didn’t really like the catwoman outfit. I thought it could have been a lot better.

He said: Anne Hathaway was better than I expected, but still didn’t do it for me as Catwoman. Maybe it’s the giant cow-eyes or long brown hair, but her sultry sassiness felt forced throughout the movie. Also while Bane was certainly a good character, he was simply too far from the original vision of Bane for my taste. [SPOILER: There was no venom whatsoever, and his crazy strength and the purpose of his mouthpiece is never fully explained. I found this annoying, as I was hoping the trailers were only going to show the "regular guy" Bane and then there would be some awesome reveal of the "venomed" Bane later on.] He certainly played a brutally insane villain, but he was far more average than I was expecting.

The pacing in TDKR was all over the place, jumping between scenes that felt far too rushed and others that felt far too drug out. It wasn’t a huge deal, but considering this movie had a more complicated plot than the previous two combined, with more characters, I felt like some consistency would have done it some good. Still, it didn’t necessarily not work.

What I Didn’t Like

She said: Why does Batman’s voice get harder to understand in every movie? I mean, Batman Begins was at the perfect point where he sounded like a badass but you could still understand what he was saying. In The Dark Knight, it just got progressively worse as the movie went on. The Dark Knight Rises was just stupid. It sounded like He and Bane were speaking dubstep. There was so much I didn’t get in that movie simply because I couldn’t understand what was being said. I also don’t like that they didn’t really explain Bane at all. He was just there. [Spoiler: They didn't explain the mask, there was no venom,  no one even asked why he was so strong. There were a couple moments in the movie where it looked like he just touched people and they were in agonizing pain. Apparently he was squeezing them or something? Hmm.] I feel like his character could have been developed a lot better but I do understand that there was a lot to pack into almost two and a half hours.

He said: Batman’s voice. WTF. Since we went to a marathon viewing of all three movies at our local theater, we were able to watch Bale’s voice acting get more and more raspy and muddled with each film. It was even MORE overblown in The Dark Knight Rises, to the point where it was comical/distracting. There were multiple points where I audibly laughed in the theater during the third film due to his voice. I remember one particular line where Batman tells someone to “pick it up”, but it sounded more like “PEEEYUUUUU!” *sigh* Looks like Nolan and the gang weren’t privy to the countless amount of jokes revolving around Bale’s exaggerated voice after the second film was released.

Speaking of voices, I couldn’t get over Bane’s Sean Connery-meets-Darth Vader voice throughout the film. On top of that, almost all of his lines felt like they were coming out of a commentary track, rather than taking place in the same scene as the rest of the actors. This is probably due to the fact that Bane’s lines were reportedly all re-recorded and dubbed over the film before release, but that’s no excuse to not bother adjusting volume or adding reverb and other effects to make it seem like the voice is taking place in the film and not over it. Much like Batman’s exaggerated voice, every line from Bane had boosted low-ends that contrasted far too much compared to “normal” characters in the movie.

Final Thoughts

She said: I would say that I would have to see it again, at least once if not twice, to fully understand everything that was happening since there was a lot to take in. I’m a person who needs to watch something multiple times because I don’t remember everything the first time through.

He said: TDKR is an awesome movie with some really cool scenes, but it might not be the incredible finale everyone is hoping for. While the first two films offered up multiple scenes that incited cheering in our theater, the final movie didn’t really have the same number of “oh snap!” moments as it’s predecessors. I would have liked to see someone better casted as Catwoman (who is never actually called that in the movie) and a Bane that’s a little closer to the original character (aka, less human). But lets be honest, most of my negatives are fairly nit-picky. It’s not the best movie in the series, but I think it certainly beats out the first one, and is almost in-arguably the best action movie this summer. It makes The Avengers look like a children’s Saturday morning cartoon in comparison. I’m going to miss Nolan’s work on Batman. He really knows how to make superhero movies for adults.

While much better than the originals, the new ME3 endings certainly bring with them new questions and inconsistencies. Hurray discussion time!

**THERE WILL BE SPOILERS BELOW.**

When I first beat Mass Effect 3, I chose the rainbows-and-unicorns synthesis ending. I figured, “Why not put an end to the fight by making everyone the same!?” The ending left me with some questions, but overall I was satisfied, as my imagination was able to fill in the gaps that millions of fans apparently could not. “OMG with the relays destroyed, is everyone stranded?!” “Why was Joker running away!? He would  NEVER do that!” “How did my two companions escape!? I thought they died!” These were not relevant questions in my opinion, but I heard them asked over and over again from people who apparently needed every minor detail in a game ending spelled out to the letter or they would be forced to bitch and moan to no end. I felt pretty good about my ending. That is, until I read about the indoctrination theory. At this point, I felt like a complete tool. I felt so bad, in fact, that I replayed the entire ending to choose the “right” ending, in which Shepherd does what he set out to do years before: destroy the reapers.

I was 100% committed to the the indoctrination theory, as it appeared to be supported not only by countless events, dialogue, and other subtleties in Mass Effect 3, but in the prior two games as well. I read as many blogs and news posts as I could analyzing the theory, and I’ve still yet to find someone who was able to completely refute it’s validity. That is, of course, until Bioware released it’s new extended endings. These endings have managed to completely refute the indoctrination theory by directly labeling the “Star Child” as an AI, rather than a figment of Shepherd’s imagination. It’s sad really, as it shows how sloppily the ME trilogy was written, and seemingly proves that it wasn’t actually written as a trilogy from the beginning. Like many other sequels that have been written after-the-fact, Mass Effect 2 & 3 suffer from plot holes and inconsistencies that helped feed the indoctrination theory at it’s roots. But let’s talk about the actual ending for a bit, shall we?

The Star Child

So the Child is simply an AI (or “VI” virtual intelligence), programmed by higher beings (assumingly hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years prior) who saw the problem with organic life constantly creating synthetic life. Eventually, synthetic life turns against it’s creators, and thus threatens to end all organic life in the galaxy. So if it was simply an AI, why would it provide Shepherd with the three options at the end? Oh, because the Crucible “re-wrote” him in some way. Wait a minute… the Crucible, a machine with blue prints that change with every cycle, and that was designed by organic creatures with no knowledge of the Catalyst, somehow perfectly rewrote the code of an AI that no one knew existed? I find that slightly hard to believe.

What’s even more hard to believe is the new “screw you, kid!” ending that Bioware introduced with the DLC. I actually had no idea they had added a 4th ending when I booted up my old save. I was so pissed at how Bioware tried to pass the Star Child off as an artificial VI that I immediately shot at him the first chance I could.

Big mistake.

When you shoot the Star Child, he suddenly decides that the best idea is not to allow you to make the decision like he said previously, but rather to simply let the Reapers carry out their mission. What happened to him being “re-written”?! Did my bullet passing through him re-write his code back to the way it was? That makes no sense. Granted, the brand new ending cinematics for this decision were pretty good, with a new (Asari!?) woman taking the place of Buzz Aldrin’s “star gazer” character from the original ending. I honestly don’t know the reason for this, but it was a helluva lot better ending with her in it. Sorry, Buzz.

I realize that I haven’t gotten to the actual endings yet, but I wanted to voice my questions (ones that were easily answered by the indoctrination theory) that were left before we even get there:

- Why does the Star Child  look exactly like the child who was killed on Earth at the beginning of the game?

- If the Star Child has always been in control of the Reapers, and in control of the Citadel, why didn’t he do something to assist Harbinger’s invasion of the Citadel in the first game?

- (The following only applies if you made peace with the Geth) Shepherd STILL doesn’t address with the Star Child the fact that the synthetics are currently completely at peace with organics, and are in fact working to help SAVE the organics from the damn Reapers. One of the biggest moments of all three games is completely left out of the ending. Wow.

- Why is the Citadel designed to perfectly acclimate a human making one of the three choices? (I mean, there were automatic paths that came up and everything, the two handles to grab for the control ending, an exposed component to be shot for the destroy ending… wtf?)

- As mentioned above, why does the AI just automatically go back to his old way of thinking after Shepherd shoots him or waits too long? He was either originally programmed one way, or he has since been re-written by the Crucible somehow. He shouldn’t just go back and forth between the two options at will.

- How was the Crucible designed perfectly to rewrite the Catalyst AI despite no one actually knowing the AI existed? As I mentioned, we’re talking hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years of countless cultures all somehow adding to a design that the Reapers, with all their technology, could never destroy. Yet it’s a design that works with this current cycle’s technology, people, etc to re-write an AI that was programmed in a way modern civilizations couldn’t even begin to fathom. Unless they had objective C back then too?

- How did Anderson end up in the exact same place as Shepherd without following the same path? No, the idea that the station was “shifting” doesn’t work. Anderson describes exactly when Shepherd sees maybe 5-10 seconds before Shepherd sees it, and there is absolutely no shifting going on as you approach the console area, yet Anderson is sitting there waiting for Shepherd, with no other path to that location in sight. Huh?

You may have more questions, and I may think of more after the fact, but those are the big ones that stood out to me just a couple hours after finishing the game.

The Three Main Endings

As for the three main endings themselves, I can say that I’m definitely impressed with how much new content Bioware created, as well as with how different the endings are now. You finally get a clear idea of the consequences of your decision, whether good or… well, good. Seriously, all the endings really end in a good way now. It’s kind of strange, but while the original three endings painted the red “destroy” decision as the “good” one, the extended endings show the destroy ending as really being the worse one, which fits more in line with the renegade (red) vs paragon (blue) color scheme the game has always had.

The Control Ending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5J-QDTM8Zk

This ending originally seemed like the bad one, as this was the ending that The Illusive Man was going for all along. The idea was that he could control the Reapers and use their technology to further the Human race, assumingly for his own causes. So yes, in the Illusive Man’s hands, this probably would have been bad. However, in the hands of Shepherd, things happen quite a bit differently than what the original ending showed. Shepherd essentially becomes the new Citadel virtual intelligence. That’s right, somehow his mind and memories are retained through his electrocution, and he becomes disconnected from his original self and gets integrated into the system in place of the Star Child.

This ending  was by far the most intriguing for me, as it shows that while his physical form may be gone, Shepherd didn’t actually “die”. It appears that all those jokes about having a Shepherd VI back on the Citadel proved to be foreshadowing for his ultimate demise and rebirth. Shepherd then uses his new powers to repurpose the Reapers for good, and to help rebuild the Citadel, the Mass Relays, and all the destruction they caused on various planets. Things seemed pretty damn peachy with this ending, and I almost feel guilty for not choosing it… almost.

To me, even with Shepherd seeming to have ascended beyond any sort of threat, I still worry that there’s always the chance  that the original programming comes back and the cycle immediately starts back up again. There’s a reason I didn’t choose control in the first place, and there’s a reason I didn’t choose it this time. Too risky.

The Synthesis Ending

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFzrRz6Dc0Y

This was kind of a cop-out “happy happy joy joy” ending the first time, and it remains the same in the extended cut. However, the extra shots of people’s DNA being changed and such were cool. I still don’t really buy into the idea that all life can instantaneously become partially synthetic, and that everyone is fine and there are zero issues. Whatever, it’s sci-fi, right? By the way, this is the ending where Shepherd truly does die.

Sure, Joker gets to somehow start a relationship with a machine (good luck with your sex life, buddy!), and the Reapers, seeing no reason to destroy synthetic life for some reason, are now helping everyone out like the good little cyber-crabs they are. But wait a minute… can’t semi-synthetic life still create synthetic life?! What’s to stop someone from creating new robots that aren’t synthetic+organic!? Oh that’s right, NOTHING. No problem is solved as all, other than ensuring that Joker will never be able to reproduce. Wait, did synthesis add organic reproduction systems to all synthetic life?! I would rather not think about it.

Up next in Mass Effect 4: a group of partially-synthetic humans create a fully synthetic robot that gains awareness and goes on a galactic killing spree. No more happy happy joy joy.

The Destroy Ending

As I mentioned in the intro, this is the ending that I originally chose after coming to the (technically false) realization that Shepherd had been indoctrinated. It felt extremely satisfying to know that I finally stuck it to the Reapers. To my surprise, I found out that Shepherd actually isn’t dead due to a clip right before the credits. This made perfect sense with the indoctrination theory, as the idea was that Shepherd never actually left London, but rather was waking up after the blast in the clip. After all, there was no possible way he could survive the entire Citadel exploding right? RIGHT?!

Wrong. Despite being in the vacuum of space, in the center of the largest expulsion of energy any organic-made device has ever seen, and sitting on top of an exploding space station, Shepherd is somehow still alive. Let’s not even take into consideration blood loss, or any of the other trauma he experienced on the way there. Riiiiiight. Don’t get me wrong, after the over 100 hours of gameplay I invested into these three games, I want to believe that my character survives, but it makes absolutely no sense outside of the indoctrination theory, and it was not explained any more in the extended cut.

As for the rest of the ending, it was about what I expected, and is probably the most realistic of the three. Things got really messed up, and they’re gonna stay that way until everyone works together to fix it. I like to think that the people who are left behind will start stripping down the Reapers and will use their technology to create even more powerful FTL drives for their ships. Perhaps the Mass Relays won’t even be needed in the future! Either way, it’s made clear that civilization will rebuild, and all is not lost.

I’m OK with that.

Thanks, Bioware!

Obviously these endings won’t satisfy everyone, but I have to say that Bioware did one helluva job with only three months to whip up the new content. They flesh out each ending, making it feel like your choice really had a unique effect on the universe. In the end, isn’t that really all we can ask for? Sure, the added 4th ending is unsatisfying for many, but what else could have happened if you refused to do anything about the Reaper threat? I feel like the 4th ending is exactly as it should have been. Sure, life as we know it has been obliterated, but the next cycle’s civilization might have a fighting chance when they discover Liara’s message.

Yes, I wish that Bioware would have adopted the indoctrination theory, as it would have been the single greatest twist in entertainment history. Millions of players would have been “indoctrinated” into thinking the horribly confusing and inconsistent ME3 ending was simply all in Shepherd’s mind. The DLC could have had you waking up in the very spot where you got knocked out, and the play would then continue based on the choices you made in your head. I don’t know how this would have played out exactly, but I’m also not a science fiction writer.

When all is said and done, whether you agree that the endings were satisfactory or not, the fact that the extended cut exists shows how committed Bioware is to their fans and to their franchises. I haven’t heard it mentioned in any media outlets yet, but they actually removed the DLC message after the credits that everyone found so offensive (I couldn’t have cared less)! I have enjoyed every minute of my time with the Mass Effect trilogy, and can’t wait to see what Bioware has in store next for the universe.

I just pray that it’s not an MMO.

Yep, that was awesome!

Let’s have a chat about Ridley Scott’s recently released prequel to Alien.

I have now seen Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s 2nd foray into the world of aliens, two times in the theater. The last movie I saw twice in a theater was Transformers. I was so disappointed by what a terrible movie it was that I thought I would enjoy it more the second time if I went in with lowered expectations. Nope, it was still bad. Prometheus drew me back a second time because it’s a fantastic movie. It’s one of those movies that you’ll think about for days, even weeks, after you see it. It’s a movie that asks questions not just about where those pesky aliens originated, but about the origin of humanity as we know it. It’s ideas place Christianity and Evolution on the same plane; as religions that need an equal amount of faith to believe in. The concepts in Prometheus, while wholly science fiction, are almost in line with The Matrix, in that you leave the theater thinking about things just that much differently.

First off, let’s get this out-of-the-way…

SPOILER WARNING

If you haven’t seen the movie yet, I highly recommend you do that first. I will be discussing very specific parts of the movie in this article, as with any future “let’s talk” articles about movies. Feel free to come back to discuss the movie after! Bye now!

The biggest disappointment for me with Prometheus wasn’t the movie itself, but rather the critics who are giving it low marks. Most of the people who are doing this are saying that this movie produces far more questions than it does answers, and that there is no closure at the end of the movie, or rather, a proper conclusion. I don’t get this at all, as the movie made perfect sense to me the first time I watched it, and even more so the second time. Let me break down some of the points of contention that I’ve seen critics have issue with.

What the hell did the opening scene have to do with anything?
I’m actually surprised that so many people (including friends of mine) didn’t understand the opening scene of the movie, but I suppose I could see how things might have gotten missed. The planet we see in the opening scene is very early, lifeless Earth. The Engineer watches as his people’s ship leaves the planet, and promptly takes a serum that breaks down his body to the very DNA. As he breaks apart and falls into the water, he is providing the very building blocks of life for the planet. It seems to me like this race of “proto-humans” has done this on more planets than just Earth, but I suppose that’s not something we’ll find out until future movies (if they are made).

What killed all the Engineers within the dome?
Again, while this is not explained directly in the movie (although it’s theorized), it seems pretty obvious what happened. Somehow the alien virus got released in the dome, and it infected a huge number of Engineers. Those that were inside the ship had to cut off the rest to keep from being infected themselves, or from making the outbreak worse. To do this, they went into the hypersleep, assumingly to let the outbreak die out. We don’t know the life-cycle of the alien virus, so who knows if it does take hundreds of years for them to eventually die off? Why didn’t they wake up? Who knows? A malfunction? Was it on purpose? I don’t think that question really affects the movie much.

Why was David such a conniving douchebag?
It is quite clear to me that throughout the film, David (the android) was simply following orders given to him by Peter Weyland. Much in like in the original Alien, where Ash (a different android) is following orders that were programmed into him, so is David as he causes trouble for the crew by bringing back the alien goo to the ship. If there is one aspect of his actions that might actually show a bit of real spite, it’s that he infects Charlie rather than choosing someone else. It’s obvious from the beginning that Charlie has no respect for David, and while David is supposed to be devoid of real emotions, it does seem like Charlie gets under his artificial skin. But alas, while David is certainly painted as the main antagonist in this movie, I feel like Weyland is the true bad guy.

What exactly were the orders given to David by Weyland?
This is one of things that is actually not provided by the movie, but I feel like actions speak louder than words. It seems pretty obvious to me that Weyland’s orders were simply to find a living Engineer at all costs. Since no one really knows the nature of biological weapon, who’s to say that David didn’t infect Charlie because he was testing it out to see if the goo somehow related to gaining access to an Engineer? Keep in mind that this happened before David found the Engineer in hypersleep.

Why did the Engineer react the way it did towards the humans & David?
While we don’t know what exactly David said to him (assuming he did what he was told and asked what Peter told him to ask), it seemed extremely apparent to me why the Engineer reacted with such anger. He saw the humans – the far inferior creatures that his race created for whatever reason – and he saw David. He realized that the same creatures his race was trying to wipe out (again, for unknown reasons) had made the same mistakes hat his race did in trying to create life (David) themselves. To me it was disgust and anger that caused him to react the way he did. He watched his creations make the same mistake they did in creating life on their own.

Why did the Engineers create life on Earth? Why do they want to destroy it?
It seems obvious to me that these are questions that are being saved for a sequel to Prometheus down the road. While many critics saw this as a negative, I don’t see this being any different from thousands of other movies that have ended with minor “cliffhangers”. My opinion? I think that the Engineers have been constantly watching humanity, as well as life on other planets they have given it to, and have become disgusted at what humans have become. They saw the war, the disregard for life, and other very human actions. Perhaps they were worried that the humans would eventually find a way to spread their hate to the stars, and didn’t want that to happen, so they planned on destroying all life with their biological weapon (the aliens).

I can’t really think of any more blatant questions that I’ve heard about the movie, but I feel like overall the movie does a great job answering some things, leaving other questions to interpretation of the viewer (as a good movie should), and finishes the movie with the last two questions that will be answered at some point in the series, hopefully in the inevitable sequel. I don’t see any this as being a negative aspect of the film. Again, comparing this to The Matrix, people had ten times more questions coming out of that film, but it was still an amazing movie. Had there been no plans for a trilogy,  it wouldn’t have been so great. So for me, the validity of how great Prometheus is on it’s own relies a lot on what happens in future films as much as it relies on itself.

If there is one thing that bothered me about Promethues, it’s the blind stupidity of so many of the characters, who are all supposed to be scientists in their respective fields. I heard the phrase “Don’t touch that!” so many times I felt like I was leading a group of elementary school kids through a museum. Literally minutes after they land on a completely foreign moon, they are suiting up and driving towards a structure that they know nothing about, trying to find an alien race that they know nothing about. Oh yeah, and there are no guns allowed because this is a “scientific expedition.” WTF?! Then two of the guys get the creeps and want to return to the ship, so they do so without actually following a map on how to get out? Did everyone really plunge into these tunnels without so much as bread crumbs to find their way back? Seems to me like the realistic and logical thing to do would have been to let those “pups” free at the opening of the structure, give them over night to map everything out/search for life, and THEN dive in head-first. Yes, I understand that plots need to move along, but I felt their were too many moments in this movie that equivocated to the girl going out to the tool shed by herself with the teen murderer lurking around the property. Does the original Alien do the same thing? Sure, at first, but the crew there is not made up of intellectuals and scientists. Oh well, movie characters must be movie characters.

So if you’ve made it this far, share your thoughts! What did you think of Prometheus? Do you have further questions that weren’t mentioned here, or answers to questions I brought forth? Let me know, so I don’t feel like I’ve written this exhaustive piece for nothing.

Asia & Matt’s Minecraft Wedding of Awesome

Minecraft and LEGO: a match made in heaven? A very small heaven…

Ever since I can remember I’ve loved LEGO. Perhaps it had something to do with my mom refusing to let me get a game console until my brother and I had saved enough money to buy an Xbox, but growing up I was always drawn towards games that let me create. It’s no surprise that I was instantly hooked on Minecraft when the alpha was released, and it’s no surprise that the second the Cusoo Minecraft LEGO set went on sale, I pre-ordered it. Two quick points before I move on. First, for those wondering, LEGO Cusoo is a fantastic site dedicated to bringing fan LEGO creations to life for others to buy. Go check it out. Second, there are no such thing as “LEGOs”. LEGO is the plural form of LEGO. Yes, it’s a common nerd pet peeve, and not something I care much about, but I figured I would fill you in since I will only be using “LEGO” throughout this review.

I’ve always been annoyed when people compare Minecraft to LEGO, but I suppose for those that don’t understand the game, it seems like an easy comparison. They’re both blocky, and you use them to create stuff. Fair enough. Minecraft and LEGO have always seemed like a match made in heaven, so now that the rubber

So many tiny pieces!

has met the road and the Minecraft sets are being shipped all over the world, how did everything turn out?

The first thing that jumped out to me and my brother when we opened up the delightfully cubed box of Minecraft LEGO is how many tiny 1-nub pieces there were. My brother has the Star Destroyer and many other LEGO creations that require a lot of intricate tiny pieces, but even he was amazed at the over all smallness of included pieces. I really like that the set comes with two instruction books, each guides you to make two of the four different modular Minecraft world pieces. My brother and I were able to each use a different manual to double our efforts in building the set. If there’s one thing I can say about the manuals, it’s that you need to be extra careful when building. Because there are so many small pieces, it’s easy to miss something and not realize it until a few steps later. For any experienced LEGO builder, this is more of an annoyance than a real issue.

It only took us around 30 minutes to complete all four modules and put them together. The Minecraft world really does look cool when everything is connected, and the ability to remove the tops of the world to see the caves and wonders underneath is a nice touch. There are a couple gold smooth pieces in the set to represent gold ore, which aren’t very common among LEGO sets. That said, there is not very much room to move the creeper and Steve pieces around in the caves, or even on top, making this set a definitely collector’s display piece, and not something a child would really use to “play” with, unlike many of LEGO’s other offerings.

There is so much detail with this set, which includes lava pools, waterfalls, and even small black blocks spread throughout to represent coal ore. I was a bit disappointed when I found out the little house/shelter that is made on one of the modules cannot even fit Steve inside. In fact, there’s an odd smallness to the environment that makes the creeper and Steve seem a bit too big – as if they had arrived in a Minecraft world that was around 75% of the normal size. It’s not a big deal, I suppose, but it’s noticeable.

One of the standards for LEGO sets is the inclusion of extra pieces – particularly the small ones. As you can see by one of the pictures below, this set comes with a ton of extra pieces! I was quite presently surprised with how many smooth pieces were left over, which really shows that LEGO intends people to build their own mini-worlds with this set, rather than simply sticking to the pre-made guides. Oddly enough, all but one extra piece is included to build a second Steve, but any lego collector should be able to find a standard single blue block to do the trick.

Overall I found that, while not as exciting as many other LEGO creations, the Minecraft LEGO set really does well with showing off the small details of a real Minecraft world, even if those details are sometimes a bit too small.

LEGO Minecraft Micro World – $34.99

Nightwing has a little white bat symbol on her chest so I felt the name was appropriate. And Starfox actually does barrel rolls! They’re a lot of fun and super adorable! We love them! <3

Ever since Apple became a major player in the portable computing market I have heard the same phrase over and over: “I could totally buy the same PC laptop for WAY cheaper!” Well, let’s have a look at current PC laptops and compare prices!

Let me start out by saying that Apple has made it very difficult to compare its brand new retina Macbook Pro to anything PC builders have to offer. The obvious reason for this is that no other PC manufacturers offer a retina-type display. In fact, no phone has managed to match the quality of Apple’s retina display since it’s debut on the iPhone 4 over a year ago. Certainly some manufacturers have come close, and there has been debate as to the quality difference between several modern Android phones and Apple’s display, but if you get down to the tech and pixel density, no one else is quite there. It’s safe to assume that if no one has matched Apple’s display tech in the phone world, we probably have some time to wait before we start seeing the PC world match it as well.

As expected, I went with Alienware (Dell) for the main comparison. However, I wanted to get some other sites in there as well, so I included Origin PC and iBuyPower. Dell is by far the closest comparison, with iBuyPower being too cheap due to a lack of better RAM options (and, let’s be honest, being “cheap” in more ways than just that), and Origin PC being a bit more expensive due to only having the GeForce 660m (instead of the 650) available for its 15.6″ model with 1GB VRAM.

The specs I am using for the new retina Macbook Pro in these comparisons are taken directly from Apple’s specs page, and are as follows:

- 15.4 inch LED “retina” display @ 2880 x 1800 with 220ppi
- 2.3GHz Intel quad-core i7 processor, 6MB cache
- 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L RAM
- 256GB SSD
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1GB + Intel HD Graphics 4000
- Wireless N + Bluetooth 4.0
- no optical drive
- 7 hour battery (wireless web)
- .71″ thick, weighs 4.46 lb

Price: $2,199

Alienware (Dell) m14x Gaming Laptop

customization page

- 14 inch WLED “High Def+” display @ 1600 x 900 (no ppi advertised)
- 2.3GHz Intel quad-core i7 processor, 6MB cache
- 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3 RAM
- 256GB SSD
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1GB
- Wireless N + Bluetooth 4.0
- optical drive included
- 5 hour battery (unspecified use)
- 1.49″ thick, weighs 6.45 lbs

Price: $1,749
Difference: $500
Disadvantages:
- No integrated Intel Graphics to use for less power consumption
It was brought up in the comments that the Ivy Bridge chipset does come with the integrated Intel 4000 video card.

- Smaller screen
- Far Lower resolution
- No retina display
- 2 hours less advertised battery life
- twice as thick, 50% heavier
Advantages:
- it has the cool Alienware logo?
- has an optical drive

Thoughts
You may disagree, but I feel like the extra $500 for a far superior display, almost 50% better battery, extra integrated video card, and far more slim and light chassis design is justified. I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of that extra $500 is just for the display. Those things ain’t cheap!

Origin PC Eon 15-S High Performance Gaming Laptop

customization page

- 15.6 inch LED LCD display @ 1920 x 1080 (no ppi advertised)
- 2.3GHz Intel quad-core i7 processor, 6MB cache
- 8GB of 1600MHz DDR3L RAM
- 256GB SSD
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 660M 1GB
- Wireless N + Bluetooth 4.0
- no optical drive
- 6 hour battery (unspecified use)
- 1.5″ thick, weighs 6.8 lbs

Price: $2,126
Difference: $73
Disadvantages:
- No integrated Intel Graphics to use for less power consumption
- Lower resolution
- No retina display
- 1 hour less advertised battery life
- twice as thick, 60% heavier
Advantages:
- better video card

Thoughts
This laptop appears to be on the pricey side as far as gaming portables go. You’re paying only $73 for a far bulkier, heavier gaming laptop that has an inferior screen and less battery life. However, it does have a slightly better video card. If it were up to me, I would go with the new Macbook Pro without a second thought.

iBuyPower Battalion 101 W150ERQ Gaming Laptop

customization page

- 15.6 inch LED LCD display @ 1920 x 1080 (no ppi advertised)
- 2.3GHz Intel quad-core i7 processor, 6MB cache

- 8GB of 1333MHz DDR3 RAM
- 240GB SSD
- NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1GB
- Wireless N + Bluetooth 4.0
- optical drive included
- no battery life information found?!
- no dimension information found!?

Price: $1,300
Difference: $899
Disadvantages:
- No integrated Intel Graphics to use for less power consumption
- Smaller screen
- Far Lower resolution
- No retina display
- slower RAM
- smaller hard drive
- absolutely no battery life information found anywhere on the internet
- absolutely no dimensions found anywhere on the internet
Advantages:
- it’s waaay cheaper?

Thoughts
I’ll be honest, after my terrible experience attempting (and failing) to find basic specs information on iBuyPower’s website, I’m beginning to wonder how they do business. I searched far and wide on the internet to find basic battery estimates and dimension information and came up with absolutely nada. I couldn’t even find a review for the laptop anywhere. Ok, with far inferior features, and zero dimension/battery information, I found a laptop that is $900 cheaper. I don’t know about you, but there is no way I would invest money in this product.

The Bottom Line

The biggest contender to matching the retina MBP’s specs while maintaining a lower price is obviously the Alienware m14x. $500 is not a small amount of cash, and while a lot of hate is piled onto Dell from hardcore gamers out there, they’re not that bad are they? If they are that bad, and you really don’t go with them, you’re going to be stuck with an extremely cheap, and unnervingly shady product from iBuyPower that falls far short of the MBP, or an almost identically-priced product from Origin PC that has a slightly better video card while falling short in several other categories.

Like with Alienware before they were bought out by Dell, high quality comes at a high price. When it comes to gaming laptops, which generally can’t be built from scratch (or rather, not easily built from scratch), you really do get what you pay for. If you don’t care about the retina display, that’s ok (although if you’ve ever gamed on a retina iPad, I think you might change your tune), but what about the decreased battery life and majorly bulky/heavy design of modern gaming laptops? Call me crazy, but considering the high design quality in Apple products combined with superior and equivalent hardware, I don’t see what the fuss all about. From what I’ve seen in this example, and many times in the past, Apple’s price points are pretty on par with other high-quality PC companies such as Origin. Obviously prices will always vary based on different features, but Apple’s portable prices have always reflected the incredibly high quality of their products, which includes design points that other PC makers can only dream of achieving. As the saying goes, you get what you pay for, and I feel like Apple is prime proof for this.

Do you have a better comparison using a PC-building service that I didn’t use here? Feel free to post it in the comments, but keep in mind that as the weeks pass and newer technology is released, configurations will undoubtedly drop in price!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHDQHVkYq4g

Asia

As a married nerd couple, we tend to have… interesting… text conversations from time to time. When we do, we will post them here. If you’re creeped out, you’re probably on the wrong site.

I know, I know. This is not new news. This topic has been a source of nerd rage for years now, but I feel like the recent press events at this year’s E3 have shamed even the most embarrassing moments from past shows. I didn’t think anything could get worse after Microsoft’s terrible “watch paid actors play Kinect” demos, but they have.

Microsoft’s demo was bad, but at least they didn’t shove a bunch of Kinect games that no one cares about down our throat. Sony’s presentation was probably the “best”, but still had it’s bad moments. Ubisoft’s event was incredibly awkward, which is usually what happens when you hire a somewhat famous actress and tell her to say things like “girl wood”. By far, the largest embarrassment to the industry came from Nintendo. This is a shame, because Nintendo is generally the only press event that journalists actually look forward to attending.

Miyamoto is always a delight to see, as he seems genuinely enchanted with the characters and games he has helped develop. His enthusiasm and wrinkled face gives him the aura of an excited grandpa. Who doesn’t like an excited grandpa? That said, when Reggie Fils-Aime, the President of Nintendo of America, steps on stage, the mood changes from that of whimsical delight to that of an angry high school political science teacher. Throughout his presentation, which was delivered with all the bravado and excitement of a house plant, I couldn’t help but wonder what had happened back stage before he stepped out. Did his dog just die? Was he just informed that his wife was filing for divorce? Did he suddenly reach the realization that the WiiU is entirely built on gimmicky features that have been around for past few years already? Whatever it was, this man looked angry, and it stayed that way for the entire presentation.

Things only got worse when Scott Moffitt, the executive VP of sales and marketing, came out to talk about the 3DS. For someone who’s entire job revolves around getting customers to buy things, he pretty much destroyed any enthusiasm I originally had for Paper Mario and the other 3DS games he showed off. I have seen Jr. High kids that have better public speaking skills than this guy. I don’t mind if you read from a prompter, but if you read from a prompter like theres a period at the end of every single word, there’s a good chance you shouldn’t be making speeches on your company’s behalf. Like Reggie, Scott also seemed to have been given terrible news backstage. Buck up, buddy! The 3DS isn’t nearly as huge of a failure now as it was at launch!

I don’t  even want to go into the insultingly bad “Sing” ad, or the ridiculous videos of a “family” having “fun” with WiiU minigames that aired after the show. To be honest, what makes me mad, even more than all the individually bad segments from every press event, is the overall complete lack of effort to actually, oh I don’t know, make events that are appealing to people who enjoy video games. Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t care less if a paid actor talks about a game. I don’t care if Joe Montana comes out to advertise a football game. I don’t care if Aisha Tyler talks about how much she plays first-person shooters. Shockingly, what I want out of a press event is to see the games.

Maybe I’m completely wrong about this, but if you make a good game, it’s going to speak for itself. I’ve always had respect for the way Bungie revealed their new Halo games (and how 343 Industries did the Halo 4 reveal this year). The lights dim, the screen comes up, and we then watch a member of the team play through a section of the game. No, the person playing the game is not a celebrity, and there is no over-produced marketing video with buzzwords flashing across the screen. We are watching an average man play a game. While it may have seemed a bit cheesy, I loved when the developers for the new WiiU Raymen Legends game took the stage, mainly because they were absolutely stoked to be there! They were excited about the game, they played the game, and now I’m excited about the game way more than I would have been had Reggie or Scott simply talked about it after showing a short video.

Am I being overly critical? Is it too much to ask that major video game publishers actually spend some time with their ears to ground to learn about the customers they are selling/marketing to? If they want to continue with their current trend of press events that treat consumers like children watching Saturday morning cartoons, I suggest they stop letting their customers watch videos of the events online. To be honest, the most entertaining part of the events was watching tweets from industry veterans as they joked and made fun of pretty much everything on the stage. There’s a reason E3 has become somewhat of a laughing stock in the game industry, and there’s a reason several major players have stopped participating in the event. It’s sad too, because I don’t have the money to fly to GamesCom in Germany, which is fast becoming the “new E3″ as far as the industry is concerned.

If you are reading this and you are somehow relating to video game marketing in any way, please keep this in mind. It’s all about the games. If someone were to walk on stage, say “here’s this game”, then show an awesome demo, that’s all we will need to hop on board the hype train. The lights, the celebrities, the dancing, the fanfare… while these may be marketing tricks that work on other demographics, they are absolutely insulting to the majority of people who play and enjoy video games. You’re simply furthering a stereotype that gamers are drooling idiots who can’t think for themselves or discern mind-numbingly pathetic marketing attempts from actual quality games.

Please stop.

/rant

Matt