I Hate You

Forgive the navel-gazing, but it just occurred to me that I'm a misanthrope; or at the very least show strong misanthropic tendencies.

From Wikipedia:

In Western philosophy, misanthropy is connected to isolation from human society. In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates defines the misanthrope in relation to his fellow man: "Misanthropy develops when without art one puts complete trust in somebody thinking the man absolutely true and sound and reliable and then a little later discovers him to be bad and unreliable...and when it happens to someone often...he ends up...hating everyone." Misanthropy, then, is presented as the result of thwarted expectations or even excess optimism, since Socrates argues that "art" would have allowed the potential misanthrope to recognize that the majority of men are to be found in between good and evil. Aristotle follows a more ontological route: the misanthrope, as an essentially solitary man, is not a man at all: he must be a beast or a god, a view reflected in the Renaissance of misanthropy as a "beast-like state."

In short, it's a condition that stems from an acute level of idealism and expectation.

I honestly don't know what's more depressing: the fact that I recognise all the symptoms and causes in myself as evidence that I hate people, or that I'm so easily defined by a blummin' Wikipedia article.

Of course, it goes without saying that I'm disappointed that none of my so-called-friends told me this already. I guess that would have been asking for too much.

Abstruse Goose

I think it's safe to say that only a few people really achieve their dreams:



So the question is this: do we feel like failures for giving up what we think to be our dreams in order to live life? And if you could go back and do it again... would you have given up your life for your dreams?

Film: Once Upon a Time in Mumbaai

Considering the critical acclaim the film has received, I was expecting much more from OUATIM. I actually believe that Bollywood can do gangster flicks quite well, so it wasn't a flaw with the chosen genre; for me the film underperformed on a variety of levels.

Technically there wasn't much to talk about. The acting was passable, the direction unambitious. Considering the film was base don true events (despite the makers saying otherwise), I found the plot to be quite flat and even redundant at times; and any attempts at the movie to bring in other themes (like love and romance) were just plain confusing.

I admit say that I'm only being harsh due to the expectations I had going in to the film, but either way I don't feel the film does enough to warrant its two and a half running time - I even think that the makers forgot to create an ending, something which leads me to believe that this was a film only for those who live in Mumbai itself, those who already have an adequate context.

One to skip (and yes, I should have watched Aisha instead).

Book: The Girl Who Played with Fire, Stieg Larsson

I'm quite upset about this book, but I cannot tell you how apart from saying I feel cheated by the end.

Other than that, it's more of the same from Salander et al. It's gripping stuff, with the first half of the book setting the scene, spelling out what you need to know by describing the everyday movements and actions of the characters. After the literary bait and switch it's all then taken away from you as you're left in as much of the dark as the investigators in the book are. It's quite an effective device.

The same technical merit applies to this book; it's well written considering it's a translation, although I would say the characterisation is a bit lacking. I do stand by my opening paragraph too - I was quite disappointed by both the unfolding of events and how the book concludes.

Recommended, but only if you accept that you have to read all three books.

Muhtashim and Shaheen

Now sit back ladies and gentleman, for I am about to spin a tale if Internet lore which spans almost a decade as well as half the globe. Not many people know this story, but the time has now come to tell it from the beginning. Its relevance will only become apparent once you reach the end of the story. All names apart from the obvious have been changed to protect the innocent.

It may surprise many of you who are too young to remember, but before blogs and Facebook the main way in which people used to communicate and socially network were web forums. There were more than a fair few about, little pockets of introverted cyber-communities, sometimes come together by chance and sometimes by a common interest. For me, the biggest was Asian Life on the BBC's website. It was here that I came across TDS and FSP (amongst others). Meanwhile in another part of the internet, there was Mash and KWI.

Now KWI and I had become friends before any of this had happened - the particulars of which is a story for another time. But in their international wisdom since Mash and I happened to live in the same country, KWI kept pushing that we should meet. Due to my phobia of meeting people of the Internet whom I hardly knew (and the fact that this was a bald guy from Birmingham as opposed to a hot chick from London), I managed to avoid each and every push to hook up.

But then the great blog movement of 2004 arrived. Now I like to think that I started it all off, but that's probably not true in the general sense. However I certainly was on the cusp of a great migration from forums to blogs as TDS, FSP, KWI and Mash all jumped on the blogging wagon. If I'm totally honest, reading Mash's blog made me even more reluctant to meet a guy who appeared to have some serious issues. Plus I think he had a crush on me.

And what happened next was extraordinary. Networking and cross-pollination on a massive scale, as people quickly became familiar with people they hardly knew all over a single article or comment thread. TDS picked up Mash from my blog (or perhaps it was the other way around). I also believe that TDS was the first to bridge the gap between the UK and South Africa. A couple of blog roll clicks later and it all became a mass orgy of virtual hi fives and back pats. When Mash took the decision to come to London, he leveraged this virtual network to hook up with a few South Africans who were also looking for physical relationships (of the innocent kind, mind). And the rest, as you know, is history.

I was still reluctant to meet Mash. KWI had since given him my number which made dodging him even more difficult. In the end, however, he managed to track me down by figuring out where I'd be at a certain time (there are downsides to being a member of ICSS), but to my astonishment the person I met was completely different to the guy I was expecting. He was actually quite okay, and I soon forgot all the misgivings I had regarding him.

And after a number of various hook-ups, culminating in The Great South African Tour of 2010, I've come to realise that the only person who lost out with my aversion to the whole make quick Internet friends thing was me - well, in this particular case anyway. And now the tables have turned, with him being the one opening doors for me, treating me in a much better way than I ever did him.

The one thing everyone seems to agree on is how real Mash is. He doesn't spin or market who he is depending on who he's talking to, and it's this accessibility and honesty which draws all those around him in. All his other attractive qualities stem from this - his humour, his rudeness and charm and his depth. While others are tackling their internal controls in order to tell others what they think or feel, Mash totally ignores his and says it all anyway.

It's this lack of social bureaucracy that makes him so easy to talk to. Personally He's one of the few people I know who quickly understands what I have to say (whether he agrees with it or not, although it is usually the former), which allows the conversation to progress to a stage further than it would have with other people. Unfortunately this is only in real life - he still can't write for crap.

One of his best qualities however is what I realised while travelling across South Africa with him. He has nothing at all bad to say about people. He was introducing me to around three new people each day, and each were unique, quality, the best. He'd sell his friends, but not in a way some people do by covering up their flaws, but only because he genuinely doesn't see any in the people he chooses to hang with.

Being a bit of a man whore (in a nice way), I'm pretty sure everyone who knew him was taken back - in a happy way mind - when he announced his plans to marry. Of course once we all heard how he spoke about Shaheen (including that Photography story) we all realised how special she was. After meeting her the couple of brief times that I did there wasn't any doubt how suited they were, with Shaheen matching Mash's realness in such a way it wouldn't have made sense if they didn't hook up.

Which brings us to their wedding tonight. There were no tears or hesitation here, just pure certainty and confidence between a couple who knew exactly where they stood with each other. If communication and honesty are things we're repeatedly told are essential in a marriage then in my humble opinion these two have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Pretty, Hot, Attractive

As part of my ongoing duty to spell out stuff to the opposite sex (I believe women have a tendency to not use their senses and actually create their own unrealities), this is a post describing what a guy means when he calls a girl pretty. Or hot. Or attractive. You see, despite what you may think, these are not all the same things.

Before we begin, some preliminaries. Firstly, this is all only a discussion on what we can see. I'm not muddying the waters with irrelevancies like personality or character (no matter what people believe a person's appearance DOES NOT PHYSICALLY CHANGE after you get to know them); if it makes it easier for you imagine we're only discussing girls whose pictures we're looking at.

Secondly, we need to distinguish between what I describe as deep and shallow subjectivity. With regards to looks, shallow subjectivity is all about what a person likes, while deep subjectivity is about how much what they like matters. It's a bit confusing at first, but just bear with me for now (I have a post in the works elaborating on this difference which I'll publish at some point in the future).

So now, some definitions:

"Pretty" refers to a more vacuous kind of beauty. It usually refers to the face, but can also be determined by things like hands and feet, a smile and sometimes dress. It's the type of stuff most commonly associated with friendliness and niceties. This is a shallow subjective measure.

"Hot" refers to a more obvious kind of beauty. It usually refers to the body, but can also be determined by dress (or rather a lack of), an attitude or certain look. It's most commonly associated with sexiness (urgh, I never thought I'd ever use that word in this blog). This is also a shallow subjective measure.

"Attraction" is where it gets interesting. This is a more abstract measure and depends on the conscious and subconscious messages you're picking up from what you see; that whole je nais se quoi thing. There may or may not be reasoning behind it: for example, although a short skirt might be hot, it doesn't have to be attractive. For others, a hijab might have the opposite effect. For me, my upbringing has kind of conditioned me into finding well groomed eyebrows or nail varnish on a girl quite unattractive, even though I might otherwise consider them to be hot and pretty respectively - my friends have told me I like the "mousey" look, and that even if I don't consider a girl to be pretty. For others, smoking is very hot, but also quite the big turn off at the same time. This is a deep subjective measure.

There may be some correlations and dependencies between the three, but these aren't essential. A guy could find someone pretty but not hot (and vice versa). He might even be attracted to someone who is neither.

So for the sake of education let's have some examples. Remember these are all subjective measures and so you may disagree with the examples, if not the point.

Case 1: Rihanna. She isn't pretty, but boy is she hot. Overall though, she's not very attractive.

Case 2: Dawn French. She's quite pretty, but not really that hot. However she is rather attractive (and that's before she makes me laugh).

Case 3: Katie Holmes - Not that pretty, often not hot, but in all cases attractive.

Case 4: Deepika Padukone - Very pretty, very hot and very attractive.

Case 5: Kelly Brook - Quite pretty, more hot, but totally not attractive.

Since its the deepest subjective type, attractiveness is ultimately the most important measure for a sensible guy. He'll stick with someone whom he doesn't consider to be the prettiest or hottest and because he knows he's attracted to her those other measures don't matter much. In many ways, he could even be more secure about her looks than she is herself. Add personality and character to the mix and prettiness and hotness actually mean very little.

The point is that men are very objective and clinical when it comes to these things. Just because we think someone is pretty doesn't mean we want to look at them for days on end and just because we think they're hot doesn't mean we want to jump their bones. And just because I post who I find to be pretty and/or hot in this blog, doesn't mean I need someone to look like these women in order to find them attractive. In that sense accusations thrown at me of having high standards are both unfair and inaccurate.

There is an argument that this discussion essentially proves that men objectify women and see them, at first anyway, as physical objects. Whether this is true or not, or even acceptable or not (after all, a photo is nothing more than an object) is beyond the scope of the post.

So in conclusion ladies: don't be confused when a guy calls one of your not-so-pretty sistas as hot. Don't scratch your head when he tells you he's attracted to someone you know he finds neither hot nor pretty. It's our ability to be shallowly subjective about these things that allows us to be this way, and as such we can appreciate beauty without necessarily wanting it for ourselves.

Link of the Day

Toy Story 3

A wonderful post demonstrating a noble and rare attitude; and exactly the one I look for in a serious potential. Either I'm unable to see it in others or it really is rare - interesting many of my peers claim it's something that will only materialise after marriage. In which case... how does one know it will?

Snippet

[19:43:59] xxxx
    gave in to the Saffan gtalk trend i see :P
[19:44:15] Shak
    what can i say? you guys are too alluring to miss out on
[19:46:10] xxxx
    ah :) well we are a tad more friendly than poms :P
[19:46:56] Shak
    that you are. big shame about the arrogance and misplaced self-belief though, but hey can't have everything :)
[19:48:49] xxxx
    haha i can say the same about ur online persona :P
[19:50:24] Shak
    you could, but then you'd be just as unfriendly as poms. which would also make you a hypocrite :)
[19:51:20] xxxx
    haha funny how we're using emoticons to appear to soften the snide remarks
[19:57:34] Shak
    we? :)
[19:57:59] Shak
    this is a fine example of why I give you guys such a hard time. I'm going to snippet this.

XKCD

Once again XKCD manages to succinctly make such a relatively complex point:



Make no mistake though: this kind of elitism occurs in both directions, and anyone who thinks that they're universally correct in their faith are probably wrong. Remember kids, when you point one finger at someone, the other three are pointing right back at ya.

Link of the Day

Mila's Daydreams

A simple and awesome idea on so many levels - and one that may prove that staying at home in domesticity is only boring if you lack the imagination to create something to compensate for any engagement a mere job can bring.

Film: The A-Team

Considering the hash jobs usually done with, uh, rehashes of 80's classics, The A-Team isn't that bad. It's certainly fun enough to compensate for any of the obvious accusations of shallowness, and yes, Bradley Cooper is again pretty cool in a man-crush kinda way. Other than that, nothing really stands out in the two hours or so that the film runs for.

A total popcorn flick, and so recommended for those who know what to expect.

On Balance

One of the major social curiosities amongst Muslim social circles is the issue of balance. More specifically most people we meet out there on the scene will claim to be balanced, and yet at the same time everyone is so different and leads their lives in so many different ways that at first glance you would think it impossible that everyone can be true to this claim. As such the term "balance" tends to mean nothing at all, its value ever decreasing as everyone rushes to label themselves as such - you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who claims not to be balanced.

The same goes for similar phrases like "moderate", "progressive" and "east-west mixture", where the respective sides of the scale can be religion, culture, family orientation, etc. The following discussion doesn't really consider whats being balanced but I think it can be applied in a generic way anyway.

So what exactly is balance? Are people fooling themselves or even lying about how balanced they are? Are there any examples of true balance that the rest of us should model? Is it possible for so many different people to lay claim to having balance?

I think there are various aspects in which this attribute gets into trouble. The first two are largely subjective and so in my view pretty uninteresting, but I'll cover them anyway.

Firstly since balance is largely a self-assessed attribute, it can be skewed with habit, bias and post-justification. Essentially everyone thinks they're right and good and so are doing things in a right and good way. No one wants to be unbalanced, so therefore they must be balanced. This isn't a selfish or bad thing, but simply just human nature if we assume that everyone wants to be the best that they can be.

The second subjective take is that balance is also a relative term, one which can't really be defined absolutely. No two people will ever be equally (or even correctly) balanced, and so both might feel they have a right to use the label. Apply this across society and topics and you'll end up with everyone saying they're balanced to a degree.

Since it's difficult to comment much on subjectiveness - after all, almost by definition these things simply are what they are - the final take is slightly more objective and analysable. The thing is that due to its nature, balance is actually a composite or aggregate term. And as is the case with most aggregates, the detail is lost with the summary result.

This might be clearer with a practical example. If you take a balance scale then it's perfectly possible to balance it with a few grams on each plate. However the fact that the scale is balanced says nothing about the respective weights on each side; and in fact it's also possible to balance the scale with an infinite amount of different, but equal weights. In this sense the scale isn't even measuring weights, but simply compare and contrasting them.

A balance scale is one dimensional, that is that it is only absolutely aware of one thing: weight. We can (kind of) make this multi-dimensional by imagining a plate on a fulcrum or bump, and laying on it different measures at different radial positions and distances from the bump; now we're not just contrasting two things. Not only that, but each measure has an effect on everything else. The bottom line is that there's an uncountably infinite way in which to balance this plate.

Which brings us to people. Trivially, people can also be balanced in an infinite number of ways; they can be narrowly balanced by doing nothing, or more widely balanced by doing everything. There could be a single part of a person's personality which mitigates everything else, or one could just be a total all rounder with a bit of everything. The point is that all these people can fairly and objectively be considered balanced, but since that single label loses so much of the detail that matters, they could all be vastly different kinds of people.

Bear in mind that this discussion isn't about what's right or wrong or even that balance is something to be desired and aimed for; someone who prays five times a day but thinks nothing of dating doesn't have their right to label themselves balanced taken away just because a consensus think the latter is prohibited. However it is perfectly reasonable for two people each of whom consider themselves to be balanced to not sit well with or accept the constituent parts which make up those respective balances in each other.

And just to add the marriage spin (you all knew it was coming) this is why I think we so often hear so many self-proclaimed balanced single people complain about the lack of balance in the people they meet. It's not that they're not meeting balanced people at all, but more that there would be a part of that person (which contributes to their overall balance) which, when taken in isolation, becomes a bit of a undesirable or deal-breaker. Whether or not this is reasonable is beyond the scope of this post; it's up to the individual what can and cannot be weighed away. However I guess the real point here is that for every balanced person with extremely desirable qualities, he or she will also inherently have extremely undesirable qualities which should be expected.

In conclusion, it seems that "balance" alone is a useless and redundant term, unless it is qualified with enough detail to say what makes up that balance in the first place. Other measures like range and breadth may help, but eventually some kind of explicitness will always be needed in order to portray someone in the most accurate and more importantly useful way.

Food: Hazev

Essentially simply Tas with bells on, Hazev makes a nice enough place to retreat to on a Friday night. That's not to say it was run of the mill - the atmosphere and decor were all at a high enough standard to give the place a certain quality you wouldn't find in its sister restaurants.

The food, however, was pretty much the same as any other Turkish place I've been to (a comment on my palate more than the food), although there was plenty of it for a decent enough price and the fact that they hosted over 20 of us without blinking an eye made this place somewhat of a winner.

New Music

A Whole New World - Peabo Bryson & Regina Belle

My nephews' Disney's Classics CD on random prompted me to finally add this to my play list - on so many levels the best of all the traditionally animated songs. I'd say this has pretty much been in my top ten singles list since I begun listening to music properly. Of course, the film version has been skipped by the single, but there's not much between them.

Film: Toy Story 3

Essentially all Toy Story movies are the same - a bunch of lost toys get lost and spend the rest of the film in a struggle to find their way back home. The reason why the makers have stuck to this formula is because it works on so many levels - you have the excuse for Mission Impossible shenanigans, you have the metaphor of losing and finding yourself, and then you have the underlying message about loyalty, family and friendship.

And that's exactly what is brought by this, the third instalment of the franchise where modern animated storytelling first started. Of course, it's all magnified by the finality of the situation Woody et al find themselves in, but that just adds to the involvement and emotion of the whole affair. Everything is multiplied by at least five this time around (I didn't cry, dammit) and unlike other second-sequels, Toy Story 3 manages to be a fitting end to the legacy it leverages.

Absolutely recommended.

XKCD

You gotta wonder how many guys (and girls) are in this situation?



So many questions: is it better to love or be loved? Is it possible to even partner with someone if there's a better, albeit inaccessible option, elsewhere? Is it even possible to be in love with someone inaccessible, or is that why you love them in the first place?

Living a Lie

In a past life I was quite the boring fellow (yes, even more boring than I am now). For example during university I would rather race home to watch Buffy than hang out with my mates after class. Most dinners would be had at home - I might have gone out to eat once every six weeks or so - and my idea of socialising with other people was to play videogames with my brother. International travel meant going to Pakistan with family, while "meeting with friends" meant an evening of chicken burgers and poker at one of their houses. I read simple books, watched popular films on telly and the idea of going to a talk or even a gallery was totally foreign to me. Music wasn't found in clubs but on MTV or B4UM, and most of the girls I was in contact with were related to either me or my friends (not that there were many of them). Heck I still don't go out for lunch - I've had the same packed lunch daily for over two decades and I'm still not bored of it.

I'm not entirely shure what changed, although I suspect it was partly due to people telling me to "get out there" if I wished to find a wife, as well as my brother moving out and my local mates moving on with their lives and getting married. My first foray was to join an Arabic class (after work, evening classes was the most popular place to find a partner). This then grew to City Circle (bless), and then ICSS, and before I knew it I was part of a vast social network that was providing thousands of opportunities to try new things with new people and "grow", whatever that means.

I must admit that I did enjoy it. It really did open doors to things I would never had experienced had I just stayed at home. I found new people to have semi-intelligent conversation, travel the world and eat at new restaurants with. The vast majority of my 500+ Facebook friends were made via this route.

But I never forgot the reason why I had done all this, and neither did the people I was meeting. "You know so many people Shak, and get on with them. Why aren't you married yet?". For a long while I had no answer - they certainly were amazing people and I did like them all and got on with them. What was the deal?

It's only more recently that I begun to realise what the problem was. To leverage a well used cliché, it wasn't them, it was me. Since I had to essentially change myself to access this wonderful new world, I wasn't finding anyone who matched up to the person I really was. In short, by looking in a place that wasn't me, I was looking in the wrong place.

And this all becomes evident each time one of my new friends shows surprise when I describe the type of marriage (and so, wife) I want: "But that's so boring Shak! You go out all the time and love to socialise and travel and do new things and achieve - why would you want to throw that all away for a life you don't lead now?". Of course the answer is that it wouldn't really be that different, not really. It would simply be returning to who I really was.

But just to be clear here, this isn't really about marriage, but more about defining who I am. If it's a boring and introverted guy who prefers to stay in than out then I should just accept, and more importantly, be that. No one should live life as someone they're not.

And so I find myself slowly regressing, even before any explicit acknowledgements of realising who or what I am. I fully expect to settle into a life of work-home-tv-pray-eat-family-sleep now that I have a job. And you know what? I can't wait.

Of course many will accuse me of simply having had my fill, or even being disingenuously selective in saying what I like. And in many ways these accusations are essentially correct - perhaps I'm just bored of what life has to offer or over-emphasising what I want? Maybe I'm just taking for granted a lifestyle many would sacrifice their first-born for[1].

To be sure: I won't sit at home all the time, certainly not to the extent I was doing so before, but I will be more discerning and less reluctant to just stay in - a balance if you will? The point is that I won't miss the lifestyle I've enjoyed over the past few years and certainly won't be chasing or maintaining it. Whatever the case, this transition does actually feel like a return to the place I've always known and wanted to be in.

[1]excuse the in-joke

Shak's Rules of Twitter

I love Twitter. I like the immediacy, the API and content orientation, the fact that it forces me and those I follow not to waffle. In fact I'd say one of the major reasons I'm no longer outputting stuff here like I used to is because most of that content has moved to Twitter.

However, as with most things the popularity of Twitter seems to have come around and bitten it in the behind. That's right, I'm talking about those people who don't quite realise the point of the technology, those who see it as merely typing into a box or simply clicking a retweet button without thinking of the meaning and power behind those actions.

The main thing people forget is that their content on Twitter should be always be follower-centric rather than anything else. Your content should be about your audience as a whole, and not just one person in particular or even yourself. In this way, it's very much like a blog and very different to email or IM. If you still don't get it, allow me to just list some fundamental rules that, if you choose to follow, will automatically bring you into harmony with Twitter and what it actually stands for.

1. Don't extend tweets. If you're finding that 160 characters are too few for you to get your message across, then write a blog post.
2. Similarly, do not follow up or reply to your own tweets. Write a blog instead.
   
3. Don't converse. It's extremely unlikely that anyone cares what you and another tweeter is talking about past the first witty @reply to an original tweet. And unlike with FB and gBuzz, everyone becomes part of your conversation whether they like it or not (why hasn't anyone released a Twitter-conversation application yet?). My rule of thumb? Never @reply to an @reply. If you really must, consider using DM, email, IM or even the phone instead. Crazy, I know.
   
4. Don't make up hashtags to convey sarcasm. The power of hashtags is in how everyone uses the same ones - unique and disposable hashtags are useless. Try to actually, you know, say what you mean instead of implying it.
   
5. Don't abuse retweet. RT stuff you think your followers will find interesting, not what you alone do because of a particular context. Definitely do NOT RT the requests of other people - this is pretty tantamount to spamming your followers.
   
6. Don't announce small talk in order to absolve yourself of responsibility. Twitter is NOT for wishing people a good morning, each and every morning. Set up an automated scheduled email if you want to do that. Better still, wish whom you want to a good morning personally. Yes that would take time... but then they're worth the effort, aren't they?
   
7. Don't use Twitter as a glorified distribution list. If you want to tell five people that a meeting is about to start, try emailing them instead.
8. Don't use Twitter to create plausible deniability. You obviously want a single person to know it's them (and only them) you're talking about with your generic messages, so stop being a pussy, save the rest of us some embarrassment and just tell them directly
   
9. Don't fish for random conversation. If you're bored, go post on 4chan.
   
10. Don't announce new blog posts, photos, music trends, running times, gamerscores etc, and don't let third parties do it for you either. These things should have been made publicly available in their own right, and interested parties will already know about them via rss or some other delivery mechanism. Tweets regarding how to initially find stuff are okay, but not each and every time.
    
11. Don't me-too. You wouldn't go out of your way in real life to publicly congratulate, thank or best wish someone, and you look equally naff when you do it online.
12. Don't use Twitter to disseminate common knowledge. We already know what day it is, and can figure out how many weeks it is till Christmas; we don't need you to remind us.
    

There's probably more, so I'll be updating this as time goes on.

As always feel free to ignore me or accuse me of being uptight and a spoilsport. You see, the other great thing about Twitter is that you can easily unfollow people with a click of a button; but when Twitter eventually implements karma you'll all see how right I am anyway.

New Music

Keep On Loving You - REO Speedwagon

As heard on Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, this is one of those power ballads that we all know, but can't quite remember who performed it.

Back To The Grind

After a whopping two and a half years, I am now back in gainful employment. Yes it sucks that I'm starting a new job just as the summer holidays kick in, moreso that after spending two Ramadhans at home, I'll imminently be doing the whole work-and-fasting thing with the rest of you. But alas there comes a point where reality hits, especially in the credibility stakes.

Not to labour a point about ambition and career focus, it sometimes feels that I'm the only one who feels that work is quite the distraction in life, that it's a job that stagnates the mind, not unemployment. I like to think that's only because I've not found (or feel I have the freedom to find) something I love doing which also pays. That said, I am making a concerted effort to embrace my new job as something I like doing too - I've even promised myself not to use Messenger at work. Crazy stuff. Oh and for those of you who were looking forward to an increase in content (amusingly my activity on this blog decreased as I left employment), I can confirm that there is no Blogger access where I am now.

I always said that I missed the commute to work and judging by this morning I wasn't far wrong - having good music in your ears while reading a book is for a me a perfect start to the day. Falling in love with a couple of hotties on the way was a not-so-unexpected bonus.

Although I've listed a few already on Twitter, the things I'll miss from the past two years are: my twice-daily dose of Friends, my daily visit to QMT, making my own lunch, the ability to adapt (or in my case, abuse) a working day to visit the cinema or friends, tea-time, masses of holidays and, last but not least, having the company of my mum for the whole day.

But it is nice having a regular and fixed income and unlike in previous jobs I actually have to dress the part too, so it all feels like I'm growing up - perhaps this will have a more profound effect? Who knows... But despite my public moaning I am embracing this change for the better. Like most things in my life, work and career always seem to pan out for me - although thinking about it now, perhaps it's exactly the fact that I don't expect much from it that means I'm more accepting of and adapting to whatever situation I'm placed in? Hmm.

Film: Shrek Forever After

After my disappointment with Shrek The Third, I was happy to come out of the fourth (and final?) instalment feeling much better about the franchise. To be honest I still think the series is being rinsed more than anything else, but at least this time around it managed to provide some entertainment along the way.

I guess the biggest problem with the film is how its context is. It seems that Shrek himself unlearns all the lessons he was taught in the first three films, only to set himself up for yet another load of coming-of-age discovery. This patronisation of the audience is only forgiven once you laugh and cry at the story as it unfolds.

So I guess that's the key here; to consider this not of epic proportions as the first (and possibly the second) film was, but as an entertaining timepass it certainly hits the spot. Eddie Murphy's Donkey was especially on top form.

We chose to skip 3D this time around - a first for us and personally I didn't miss it at all. The swooping scenes were still swooping, but without the eyestrain. Otherwise the film looked and sounded great.

A recommended fun-filled romp.

Film: Inception

The most wonderful thing about Inception is how it holds your hand throughout the whole film. This is a good thing since it does get quite hectic at times, deliberately leading you down blind alleys and twisty paths only to pull the carpet from under you. It's this manipulative relationship with the audience that allows Inception to totally play with it; quite ironically it's planting ideas in the minds of the viewers just as the characters are doing to others in the film.

And that's pretty much the main selling point of this film. Despite the acting (with Ellen Page suddenly becoming very fanciable), special effects and plot all being to a decent standard, they are all incidental to the mindgames being played. As long as you're aware of this connection you have with what's going on, then it's all very enjoyable and fun to play along; although I suspect many might overlook the depth this film has to offer.

Totally recommended, just make sure you concentrate if you decide to go watch it.

The Standard Chartered Great City Race 2010, London

I like to think that it's reasonable to expect much less from my races now that I've stopped running. I started this year's Great City race after doing zero training; needless to say I was quite worried about how it would go. On the other hand, this lack of self-expectation made the whole thing more approachable and less daunting, and I think I enjoyed the actual run more than I usually do.

My official time came in as 26:41, a whopping three minutes down on last year's time, but still placing third in the company. If there's any evidence that I'm getting old... it's my ever decreasing fitness and speed around a course.

Pakistan Vs Australia, First Test, Second Day

Seeing as it was my last week to doss, I thought it was worthy to spend a whole day at Lord's to watch Pakistan play in the second day of their first test against Australia. This was actually a Pakistani home match, not that you would have known; apart from a small vocal crowd at the nursery end there were no indications of a real Pakistani following at the pitch.

Just as well really - my regret at missing some quality Pakistani bowling was quickly forgotten as Australia bowled them out before the end of the second session. This didn't seem to bother Afridi, who scored a deceptively useful 30 odd off half the number of balls. Still, at least I got to see both sides being played, and the clutch of wickets Pakistan took before time ran out at 7pm were exciting to have seen, if a bit sparse.

The rain came and went, but not enough to ruin the day. It was actually all rather pleasant, and once again I was surprised at how much fun I could have at a single day of a test match.

New Music

Almost Everything I Wish I'd Said The Last Time I Saw You - Wakey!Wakey!

Angsty rock baby! And I bet you can't guess where I lifted it from...

New Music

Jab Mila Tu - I Hate Luv Storys

I know I like this song by the way I'm constantly humming it to myself (or perhaps actually to someone I've not met yet?). I think it's how the track manages to be both fun and romantic at the same time which does it for me - and when I go back to falling in love with random girls on the train again (more on that later), I expect this to be the soundtrack playing in my head at the time.

Game: Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure

Zack & Wiki is a game where you have to think. Its cerebral dominoes for the casual gamer, where reaction time is less important than being able to think logically and rationally. It's joy to play, especially each time you manage to figure a play out, or have a well thought out planned executed to perfection. It's also fun to play, with lots of colour and humour to distract you each time you become unstuck with a problem.

But despite the general goodness of the game, there are also a couple of major flaws which if not managed properly can actually wreck the whole thing for you.

The first is how final some decisions can be. Unlike other games in the genre, it's possible to paint yourself into a corner with a wrong decision - or indeed even die - resulting in a complete restart of a level. Coupled with the inability to save mid-level, this sometimes makes experimental trial and error (something which is pretty vital in some of the levels) a time-expensive activity and I've become frustrated more than once with having to do 90% of a level all over again just because I messed up at the end. Yes, there is a hint and rewind system, but it's not implemented very well and is a bit useless in this type of game.

Secondly we have the controls. Being an early Wii game, Zack & Wiki used motion controls at its core - you point and click to get Zack to walk to places and pick things up and operate stuff. This coupled with a bouncy camera and inaccurate pointer (and people say HD doesn't matter on the Wii...) means it's sometimes impossible to make Zack do what you want him to do the first time - something fatal during some of the more active scenes. Object interaction (rotating, pushing, pulling etc) fares better, but still isn't perfect.

Although I'll maintain that these are pretty critical flaws, they are things that a gamer can either adjust around or live with. I'll still recommend Zack & Wiki, and at ten hours it won't take up too much gaming time either.

Film: I Hate Luv Storys

First of all let me just make it clear that I actually rather quite like love stories myself. Yes: they're farcical, unrealistic, misleading and essentially meaningless. But they're also fun, sweet, gooey and despite the common sense part of my brain screaming otherwise, a part of me does want to be the centre of a Bollywood number at least once in my life (if not for all of it. It's possible, dammit). And if that makes me a big girl, then so be it; the point is that I'm not going to hate on IHLS just because it's soppy.

It takes a brave film-maker to name his film something like "I Hate Luv Storys", since they're essentially saying that they're going to be something different, unusual or even original. The first disappointment with IHLS is that it's not that unique after all, and personally it took me a while to get over that deception.

There was hints of redemption with the couple of twists that unfolded, but these were quickly erased when things did turn out like you would expect (i.e. happily). Acting was a bit of a let down too; Sonam, with whom I was totally ready to fall in love with, severely disappointed with Imran not too far behind (honestly ladies: this guy? Really? It's Salman Khan all over again... you'll be sorry), the two of them showing as much personality as a pair of wet fishes, and with the chemistry of an inert gas.

There were flashes of inspiration, with the film leveraging its context in order to analyse itself - it just didn't go quite far enough. The funny bits were funny though, the emotional bits emotional and the charmful bits charmful... there just wasn't that specific magic present that the film itself says we needed so much. And what's with this latest trend of butchering songs? Sure the music wasn't that great to begin with... but please give us back our set pieces Bollywood.

But despite the trashing I've given IHLS, it was just about fun enough it to redeem itself and I wouldn't say that it was a waste of time for me to go watch it; I'll even admit that it was amusing trying to spot the various dialogues borrowed from previous Bollywood classics. As such, although I can't really recommend it fully, it is worth watching via DVD on a lazy Sunday afternoon - just don't expect it to linger in your mind much afterwards.

XKCD

I have (well I guess I can't really claim any insightful credit here) a theory about how those who regularly casually dated etc are usually in a better standing to pick a long term partner than those who didn't or stuck to a few longer term relationships. I'll leave it to XKCD to express this mathematically:



Don't forget to hover over the image to see the title. If you think about it, it's actually quite obvious.

Video of the Day

This single video manages to nail the whole iPhone thing right on its head:



But still I have to admit: the screen on the iPhone 4 is damn fine.