I've been told by my friends that I'm going to become an Apple person some day, regardless of how much hate I spew about that company. Today I think they're right.

I was configuring my router this afternoon, nothing special. Wanted to boost its security up to WPA2 encryption. So I set it up, then went through the process of configuring all my comptuers and consoles to match up with it. Within seconds my Wii and my Ps3 were set up with the new encryption and got up to their usual awesome connection speeds. When I tried this stunt with my 360, I realized it wouldn't even recognize my router any more. What the hell?

Upon a little more research I found out that the 360 does not support WPA2 encryption with their wireless adaptor. You read that right: Microsoft's game console, and the wireless adapter that comes with a 100$ canadian price point, does not support a newer, more secure wireless encryption that both Nintendo and Sony's game consoles do. THE NINTENDO WII can support WPA2, which I believe was patched in after its release through a console update, not to mention it and the Ps3's wireless networking is built right into the console and isn't 100 dollars extra.

Microsoft's insufferable decisions like that are making me more and more upset with how they play right through their user base for their money... because as well you know, they have no real dedication to that user base, since it's so established and so stupidly huge. This afternoon I explained to my mother why she couldn't open a .docx attachment on her older computer. After installing office 2007 on her machine and telling her about the new format being very finnickity with older versions of office, she expressed annoyance. The plugins that microsoft offers for users of earlier versions break frequently at best and straight up don't work at worst, from what I've heard. Which only seems to indicate it's another way microsoft will take your money; you're so used to office you'll just have to buy office 2007 and give them 200-400 dollars for it.

With all this and a recent spaz I had over Vista's inability to network in any way ever, I just think I have reached the end of my rope. Come this summer once I have more disposable income I may end up doing something quite drastic... a new Macbook definitely looks like a good start...

In any case, bringing this all back to games, Microsoft... you know, the makers of the most used OS in existance today... haven't made their game console compatible with a newer, more secure wireless format that literally ALL their game division related competition has taken care of before they have. When are these people going to get it? This will be what kills them one day. If they don't care for and support the user base through ALL their divisions, they're going to lose them to companies like apple and nintendo that show they actually give a damn, and on top of that, actually put out good products.

Even after the class ends I might make "TINAG" a regular blog feature. I somewhat enjoy providing commentary on other web-related issues that isn't game-related. Might be made up of movie reviews, internet business... we'll see what crops up in the world during the next year, and see how the section takes shape.

In any case, this week the topic is CBC's "The End" series, providing commentary on the web causing the elimination of various forms of media, including print, radio, and television. I'm not entirely sure it's so much an elimination, but an integration, of these mediums that is taking place. The line is blurring between them even today; radio, for example, is available in many forms on the internet, allowing users to stream stations featuring their preferred genre or type of audio entertainment. Talk shows and mixes can also take the form of audio podcasts, that can be downloaded and enjoyed at leisure. Because of how flexible and customizable internet radio options are, digital radios will not necessarily eliminate that particular medium but extend it.

Similar arguments can be made for print, as many/most news companies publish their stories on the internet in addition to publishing them in their papers. TV broadcasters also make episodes of their own featured shows exclusively available on their own websites (not taking into account piracy, obviously), along with episode guides, summaries, and a bunch of additional meta information you wouldn't be able to gather from the program itself.

What we're seeing isn't so much an elimination of these forms of media as an evolution, extension, and/or an integration of it.

I've heard too many random reviews of Watchmen not to speak up about it a little bit. I think the major problem is I loved the film for what it was (having read the book before seeing it). The negative critisism I hear, though, doesn't usually find any consistant pattern. I've heard some people say it didn't include enough elements from the novel, while others say it included too many and was too long. Some say that the bone-snapping action was too over-the-top even for the story, while others complained that there was too much drama padding out the story.

Because I can't find any sort of consensus as to why it isn't so great, I can only conclude that expectations were just set way too high for this movie.

People are, either way, going to like or hate this movie for different reasons, as people do with any movie. But I think part of the problem was this movie was set up to be a massive epic, and the other part was moviegoers didn't know what they were getting into, or rather, what to expect from this film. Plenty haven't read the story, and those that did have very particular ideas about it. Something like the Dark Knight, on the other hand, was set up to be epic and people knew exactly what to expect, and they ended up getting it and then some.

So I think Watchmen's chief failing is it's lack of clarity, which is the fault of both the filmmakers and the filmgoers. It's still an excellent movie, I think you just need to know what kind of movie you're going to see... as most movies are quite clear about what they are; action, romance, drama. This movie is a strange hybrid of all of those, and has its own sort of style, and if you're not prepared for it then you'll leave confused.

With the movement of many of our daily practices to digital means, the movement of our viewing and consumption of video was inevitable. What wasn't nearly as predictable was the way that the internet-faring public responded to the new medium.

"An anthropological introduction to YouTube" demonstrates this shift using a few examples; among them, the collective numa numa and soulja boy videos, video blogging, and the different dynamics and social changes that have resulted from youtube's introduction. Online video had been previously possible, but not in such an accessible format.

I found it fascinating how other parts of online culture migrated onto Youtube, and not only established themselves there but made use of the visuals to bring people seemingly closer together. Social communities can exist on blog sites, or social networking sites like facebook, but can't quite achieve the feeling closeness that youtube can provide, or at least, could not provide it until after its introduction. Posting video-recorded opinions and having them responded to in the same fashion actively simulates a face to face conversation, albeit one with a time delay. But until then, expressing oneself and interacting with others hadn't been quite so fluid.

In viewing any kind of journalistic media, from print to screen, regardless of how the story's being reported, people will always read into the story in their own way. Some people are inherently biased, and that shows in their own writing or talking, but others have a lot less bias. In either case, it's really important to be critical of the story and critical of the journalists telling the story, and leave enough leeway to draw your own conclusions.

This is the crux of why I can't get behind Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism as much as I probably should. It tells a story of the slanted, biased journalism and the tactics they use to spin stories the way they want. As an MIT student, though, I can attest to the fact that all journalism is not without some inherent bias. Fox News is simply the extreme end of this spectrum, with regulations and practices that no other news company would even consider employing.

This bias, along with their general lack of professionalism, is more than enough reason for this movie to exist, but I think it serves as more of a warning than anything. For those who don't think so much about bias in journalism, I think this serves as an extreme example, and will make you think twice about the news you consume, and about who it comes from and how it's told. In the end that's what is most important; being critical of what you're being told and drawing your own conclusions.

That's probably best done by getting news from multiple, varied sources and then discussing it with friends and family and whatnot. As for Fox, I personally find them pretty insufferable, so I don't go to them for news broadcasts, and anyone else who feels the same should do the same. But that doesn't mean there isn't some truth buried beneath the mountains of garbage they pile onto it, and if that's what viewers prefer, then more power to them.