Enders game

I think the idea behind Enders game is compelling. It sounds like a good basis for a book. I am not that far into it right now. So far I feel bad for ender. He is a third child which is rare in his world. Every couple is only allowed two children so that the government can have population control. Ender was allowed to be born because his parents created exceptional children. His older sister and bother were both recognized by the military as being good potential military commanders, but they didn't work out. Ender is supposed to be the best of them all and right now it looks like he is. He has gotten his tracker off which is put on a lot of children. The tracker is to see what children are good enough to be military heroes by looking at the traits they have. Ender seems like a good candidate for the military. He is still being watched by the military even though he got his off. Ender got made fun a lot for getting off because he is a third and the other kids assumed he didn't live up to his expectations. Ender dealt with the bullying by retaliating which the military people liked. They liked how ender kept hurting the kid even though the kid wasn't fighting back. Ender did this  to send a message to the others to not mess with him. The military people offered him a position at the school that would train him. However, it would means that he would have to leave his family for a long time. I think this is really sad but I think ender is obviously going into the military. I hope his sister remembers him.

Sandkings

Sandkings was an interesting story. I liked the written piece way better than the movie. The idea of bugs taking over humans is a classic science fiction theme and I thought it was well represented in the sandkings plot. It also presented the idea of humans thinking they know more than they actually do. Kress thought he had total control over the sandkings when really he had no idea of their potential power. As he deprived them of food they started to turn against him. He thought they were just pets when really they were more like a whole others intelligent species. I like how the author present wo from wo and shade as an innocent character in the beginning. She seemed like just a normal store shop owner who had a mysterious new animal. However in the end she really knew all about the sandkings and her partner was a maw himself. The twist at the end made it a much more compelling story. I didn't like the images the story had when the sandkings ate things. When Kress fed the puppy to the sandkings  I was very sad because it was a disturbing picture. I think the author went too far at that point.

The movie was nothing compared to the story. First, it didn't even follow the same plot line the story did. The setting in the movie was suburbia while in the story it was another world. The sandkings came from a lab and in the story they came from a pet shop. Kress had a whole family and in the story he was a loner. There is no comparison.

Jurassic Park Movie

After finishing the book Jurassic park we watched the movie. I had never seen the movie before and had only heard good things so I was pretty excited. The movie was good but it skipped over a lot of parts that were in the book. For example, the baby velociraptor problem was brought up once throughout the whole thing and then was dropped. I was also disappointed at the end when the velociraptors were just out run and not killed. The movie left a lot out and dumbed a lot down.

The Gould article we read had the same ideas. I agree with him in the fact that the book's plot and main ideas were not conveyed well in the movie at all. A lot of the science and revolutionary DNA work highlighted in the book was totally left out of the movie. I think the movie directors should have tried to represent the book more rather than try to make it more appealing to the audience that they were aiming for, which I assume were teenage boys.

The actors in the movie, I thought, represented the characters from the book very well. The best one I think was Laura Dern who played Ellie. I thought Timmy and Dr. Grant were portrayed very well also. The looks and attitudes of the characters in the book matched the actor's portrayals very well.

2001 references

2001 is a confusing movie. It was made in 1968 and it was a futuristic fantasy. I don't really understand it yet and from what I have read it is largely misunderstood. However, it is considered one of the best movies of all time.

From watching the first part of it though I have already recognized several references to this movie. I never knew that the writers were referencing 2001 and that there were so many instances of references to it.

1. The Simpsons episode where homer befriends a robot figure very, very similar to HAL and then destroys it by taking out its memory devices.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb68WLANxQ4

2.Wall-E is often said to be based off of 2001. The computer figure AUTO seems very similar to HAL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3A7vIcLL1M

3. The Zoo lander computer scene is most definitely based off of the ape scene with the black block.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2uHBhKTSe0

4.Community, a NBC tv show, did an homage to 2001 also in one of their episodes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQOt7l0iLFM

Jurassic Park Book Discussion

Before I started the book I had an idea about what it would be like. To be honest, i thought it was going to be pretty boring and very science-y. I wasn't too excited. However, I was pleasantly surprised. The book is very interesting and keeps the readers attention. I especially like how the author writes each chapter from a different characters point of view.

 The main man in the novel is Dr. grant, a famous paleontologist with a very logical point of view. He makes most of his decisions based on his gut and his previous knowledge of dinosaurs. My favorite character is Timmy. He is the grandson of Hammond, the owner of the island, and is invited to see the island and show what the kids point of view is. He is obsessed with dinosaurs and provides a lot of insight into the lives of the dinosaurs. He is, in my opinion, one of the smartest people in the novel, even though he is one of the youngest.


The novel is definately  a book everyone should read. The plot keeps the reader interested and wanting to read more. The dangerous dinosaur island provides an alternative world for the reader to dive into and see what it would be like if dinosaurs where to come back from extinction

GATTACA

I think this movie is very interesting so far. The idea of genetically engineered children being prodominat in the future is a likely topic. The most interesting thing I found is how the movie overcame the ethical boundries genetic engineering has. The population usually thinks messing around with nature or how God has made things is not okay, but in the movie instead of saying genetically engineering, the doctors/scientists say its making a better life for the child. They say this because technically they are getting rid of the bad qualities normal, non-genetically tested individuals pass on to their children. However, the children are still different than how nature intended and have lives that arent always better.


These genetically engineered people are said to have better lives and be superior to the normal race of their parents. The threat of disease and death are replaced with the idea that they are superior and they must live up to the expectations the doctors give them when they are born. For example, the real Jerome has a hard time coping with his 2nd place medal for swimming. In addtion, now that he broke his back, he cannot reach his goals that were given to him before he was born becasuse he is handicaped.

The idea that we can change our children to rid them of disease and give them a longer and better life seem nice. However, I think it is a bad idea to change the values of society to praise a new generation of genetically enhanced people who are superior to every one else. I think it sounds worse than talking about messing around with the genetics of unborn children.

Cloning

I am doing my future technological research project on cloning and I think what I have found so far is very interesting. First of all, cloning has a negative connotation for most people because when they think of clone they think of a massive army of clones used for war. However, cloning can be used for really good things, not just the ability to have more of yourself to help. Cloning researchers are more interested in cloning to help enhance the society we live in.


The most important use for cloning that researchers are focusing on is to help save lives. For example, if your kidneys were failing and you needed a transplant a doctor could just take a sample of cells from your current kidneys and grow a new pair. This way you avoid taking someone else's body part which can cause some psychological distress and there is no waiting list so you can get what you need as soon as possible.

Most researchers in England are focusing more on cloning for economical purposes than biological purposes. A new trend within farmer/scientists in Western Europe is to clone their sheep or cows so that they can produce their products faster and get the best animal all the time. This is much more controversial because people are starting to get worried about eating the cloned animal or a product of a cloned animal for fear of sickness. However, as research has proved, cloned animals are no different than the animals that they got cloned from. If cloning livestock become popular, it could have great benefits to society. A faster out put of high demand dairy products and meats will make the cost go down and have a better quality (because you would only clone animals of the higher quality.)

The biggest problem cloning has today is peoples reaction to cloning. The ethics of cloning seem too scientific and futuristic for people right now. However, in the future it can be a whole other story...