Are Energy Efficient Light bulbs Really "Green"?

I know lots of people who are jumping on the bandwagon and converting all of their light bulbs in their houses to the new energy efficient light bulbs simply because they are "Green," a term used to define environmentally friendly products.  The media is constantly bombarding us with constant images of global warming (climate change), and asking us to conserve energy.  Sure, these light bulbs use fluorescent technology which is very energy efficient.  Switching to these bulbs will greatly reduce your energy bill and of coarse, and your house will not be as bright as it use to be.  The most common complaint is that these bulbs do not generate as much light as older light bulbs and the house will appear darker, but we are saving money and the environment right?

Most people are satisfied with lower energy bills and don't stop to think about the other side of the coin.  Yes, fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury vapor.  If you break one in your house, expect to spend upwards of $2,000 dollars to have a toxic waste crew come and rid your house of mercury (which can kill you very easily).  And what happens when you throw out those bulbs?  Throwing them in the trash will eventually lead them to become broken and the landfills will now be letting mercury seep into the ground water, which everybody knows ends up in our tap water.  So let me pose this question, are Compact Fluorescent Bulbs really "Green."  I say no, yes they save you money, but they are toxic to the environment and our health.  Apparently "Green" appears to mean cheaper or low cost in reality.  Recent news reports of tap water in New York being contaminated with prescription medication that people have thrown in their trash are quite scary.  Do we really want mercury mixed in our tap water as well?  Is it really worth the risk just to save a few dollars on our electric bill? Is that really "Green"?  It's quite ironic that people feel like they are saving the environment when really they are doing just as much damage or maybe more.  For the time being, I'm sticking with good old fashioned, bright, glass and metal light bulbs.          

Ghostbusters 3?

Its been awhile since I last wrote, its probably because nothing interesting has happened in the last 6 months.  But being the new year, I decided to at least make an attempt at some sort of blog to start the year.  So I decided to write about a thought that has been passing through my mind for the last year.  

For the last few years, most of the major hits at the movies have been sequels.  Recently studios and filmmakers have been going further back in time and releasing sequels to famous films.  It all started with the pre-quels so the "Star Wars" films.  They were very successful, and caused filmmakers to look back instead of trying to come up with an original ideas.  It wasn't long before there was talk of an other "Rocky" film.  It took awhile to materialize, but "Rocky Balboa" finally was released.  It did moderately well, and it wasn't long before "Die Hard 4" , and a "Ninja Turtles" came out.  The "Rambo 4" trailer has hit the theaters, and pretty soon the long awaited "Indiana Jones 4" will be coming out.

All this got me thinking, Ok, what will be the next one?  All the successful films from the 80's and early 90's had been done or will be released shortly.  But there was one childhood favorite that hasn't been mentioned yet, "Ghostbusters 3."  Ghostbusters was one of those films that took over my childhood and I'm probably sure it did to a lot of other people my age.  All I can find is that there are rumors of it possibly being in development, and that it could turn out to be an animated film like the new Ninja Turtles.  My hope is that the Ghostbusters will return to the screen in the next year or two.  It would be perfect for all the fans, make the series a trilogy, and it would be just awesome.  

Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD

With the recent announcement that Paramount will only release HD-DVD's from now on, I decided to share my thoughts on the current HD format war.  For those of you who have no idea what the deal is, there is a technology war going on over which format will replace the DVD players in your homes.  The two formats in question are Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD.

With the price of High Definition televisions falling like crazy, lots of people are beginning to invest in nice flat screen TV's.  What most people don't realize, is that once you get one of these nice screens, all your DVD's, and local cable television will suddenly look bad, blurry, grainy, and fuzzy.  This is because currently normal televisions display 525 lines of resolution.  These new HD televisions, can display up to 1080 lines of progressive scanning.  Thats more than double in vertical resolution.  So the TV ends up scaling the 500 lines of normal DVD's and televisions, to 1080.  Stretching the image to fill the screen.  That can cause the image to look bad because half of the lines are not being used, or doubled.

So once you notice this, you realize that you will need to get HD cable, just so the images looks nice.  So naturally you will want your movies to look nice, so you will need a HD disc player for your movies. 

The problem is that all the movie studios are not in the same boat, some are committed to deliver movies in Sony's Blu-ray format, and some are on the other side with Toshiba's HD-DVD format.  Technically speaking, both formats are HD, but the difference basically boils down to the amount of data that can be stored in the discs.  Currently, Blu-ray discs can hold up to 50 gigs.  To make a comparison, normal DVD's can hold 9 gigs max.  HD-DVD's can hold 30 gigs.  So Blu-ray can hold more footage than HD-DVD's, but its more expensive because its newer technology, and thats the hole debate now.

Some people want the extra space to add more content to the disks, such as extra behind the scenes footage and featurettes, others don't want to pay the extra for newer technology.

Studios that are committed to Blu-ray are: Sony Pictures, MGM, Disney, Pixar, 20th Century Fox, and Lion's Gate.

Studios under the HD-DVD camp are: Universal, Paramount, and the Weinstein Co.

Warner is in both camps and currently makes both Blu-ray and HD-DVD's.  

Personally, I feel that some competition between the two is good because it will drive the price tag down.  But it also has a counter effect because now people are afraid to buy either because they don't want to buy the one that will lose out in the end.  I know some people who spent tons on Betamax only to have it become obsolete to VHS.  I also remember that when DVD's came out, there was another format called DIVIX, that lost out in the battle, so if you bought one you lost all your money. 

So who will win, its too early to tell, but I have noticed that most stores I go to have bigger Blu-ray displays and some only have blu-ray players.  Blockbuster now only will carry Blu-ray, and from my experience more people have heard of Blu-ray than HD-DVD.  But then again, Paramount just announced that it will only release its films on HD-DVD, so we will have to see what happens now as the pot gets stirred because Paramount has lots of great films that people will want.  Paramount did say that Speilberg's films are not bound to HD-DVD and will probably come out on Blu-ray.  That's interesting...    

 

Review of the Day- SHARKMAN

Today's review of the day is about a show I caught last week on the discovery channel that really impressed me.  For those of you who don't know, last week was SharkWeek on the discovery channel.  Every year for one week, all the programs on that channel are shark programs.  Sharks are fascinating creatures, so I decided to watch a few.  One of the shows I saw was a 2-hour program called "Sharkman."

This show is about a man named Michael Rutzen, who lives in South Africa, and frequently free dives with Great White Sharks.  I must point out that up until about 2 years ago, every program that involved great white sharks, was a show with a bunch of people inside of a cage.  No one was willing to get into the water (cage-less) with this huge monsters.  The year before I had caught a program where for the first time people ventured outside of the cage, but really didn't interact with the sharks, and returned to the cage frequently.  Pretty amazing in itself, but then I saw this years program, "Sharkman," and I was blown away.

This guy has no cage on standby for retreat, just scuba gear and swims with these 15-foot great whites.  And the most amazing part is he interacts with the sharks, grabbing their noses and punching them if they get too close, just to see how they will react.  But thats not all, he discovered by accident that if he grabs their nose, they appear to become paralyzed (motionless), or catatonic (sleep like trance).  So he decides to investigate and discovers that studies have been done in smaller sharks, prove a reaction called "tonic-immobility."  Apparently in some sharks, if you grab their nose in the right spot and right way, they will go into this sleep like state.  So after learning how to do it, he attempts to use the technique on a Great White Shark.  I won't spoil it for you but its pretty amazing stuff.  If you get a chance to check out "Sharkman," you won't be disappointed.     

LDS opinion of Passion of the Christ

Another question I frequently get asked, being that I'm a student of film and LDS, is what I thought of the film, "The Passion of the Christ."  Most members of the church have not seen this film.  Probably because of the violence and its rating.  Most members will not see R rated films.  Personally, I have always wanted a film of Christ's life to be made.  So when I heard about this film, I was very interested.  Before I even saw the film I heard lots of negative criticism about the violence depicted in the film from fellow members of the church.  But, I decided to see the film myself before I passed judgment.

Having served as a church missionary in Brazil for 2 years, I was very familiar with the new testament, and the story depicted in the film.  I really wanted to see how close the film would stick to the bible, and if there were any variations.

I was amazed at how closely the film followed the New Testament.  Obviously there are points in the story that are open to interpretation, but for the majority of the film it was mostly head on to what is written by the four gospels.  The violence is intense, but it is exactly how its written in the New Testament.  It's not glorified purely for entertainment as most films do, its plainly clear that Mel Gibson (director) intended to show us what probably really happened.  I understand how people are unable to handle this kind of violence.  But for me personally, it gave me more of a perspective on what Christ went through.  And can honestly say I gained more appreciation and respect for what he did for us.  Images have more power that words on a page.  I had always read/studied growing up that Christ was tortured and crucified.  But when you see what that really entails, it gives you a better understanding and respect.

I had a similar experience when I saw "Saving Private Ryan."  I was about 16 years old when I saw this film.  My dad had taken my brothers and I, mainly because I had relatives who served during WWI and WWII.  My great grandfather, who I'm actually named after, served in both these wars.  I had always known that growing up.  I had seen some war movies and I thought I had an idea of what that might have been like.  But when I saw Saving Private Ryan, the pure realism, violence (done with respect/not to glorify), and horror, basically the reality of war, I was changed from that moment.  I walked out of the theatre with a understanding and respect for what my great grandfather did for me.

I had this same experience with Passion of the Christ.  I was changed.  The film evokes an emotion of personal sacrifice.  Anyone who has seen the film can say that the film is not just a violent show to shock and awe; it's meant to give people an understanding of how much love Christ had for us.  I quickly realized that those people who had told me not to see it because of the violence, haven't seen the film.

Anyone who truly wants to know what Christ went through should see this film.  I guarantee you will be changed.  If you are unable to handle that kind of reality, then you probably shouldn't see the film because you will be too distracted from the images to feel the emotion of the film.  

Keep in mind, that this film mainly covers the final hours of Christ's life, with some quick flashbacks of his ministry.  I would have liked to see more of these flashbacks of Christ's ministry.  It would have given the film more of a balance, and probably wouldn't cause people to think its just a bloody show.  So my final word is that I thought the film was well conceived and worth seeing if your truly interested.            

Bourne Ultimatum

My wife and I went to see the Bourne Ultimatum last night.  The theatre was packed for the 6:45 show.  I had very high expectations because the last two films were very well done.  I was not disappointed.  The film is action packed with a great story.  From the beginning to the end the chase is constantly going.  The fight scenes are well choreographed and very fast.  If you blink you will miss some of it.  Matt Damon gives a powerful performance as we regains his lost memory.  The car chases are the most intense I have seen in awhile.

The only criticism I can offer is that some of the intense action is shot on long lenses with a shaky camera.  At some points it cuts so fast you can't really see what is happening.  Other than that I can't complain.  I recommend this movie, my wife even liked it and she doesn't like violent movies.    

Review of the Day

Everywhere I go I find myself being asked about my iPhone.  Often I try to hide it from view when I'm using it just to avoid the line of questioning that always follows.  So I decided to write my own review so everyone will know what I think about it.

Yes, I was one of those people who stood in line on launch day to get one.  My reasoning for shelling out the 600 dollars was that I wanted to consolidate my gadgets.  I had this problem years ago when I was carrying my palm pilot, and cell phone.  So when the Palm Treo came out, I decided a phone/palm pilot would free up my pockets.  But that was before the iPod revolution.  So now I found that my pockets full again with my palm treo and iPod.

So the iPhone just made sense.  A phone/PDA/iPod in one.

First off, the iPhone is smaller than my Treo.  It fits nicely in my pocket.  I was a little worried about the screen because it is made of glass.  But over the last month I have discovered that the screen is extremely durable.  I have dropped it twice and the screen has nothing on it.  Its very bright, even outdoors.  And the resolution is the best I've seen on something this small.  The finger gestures for input are very unique and simple.  I found myself playing with it just because its fun.  The only drawbacks are the fingerprints that are left on the screen.  I also have very dry hands.  And sometimes the phone will not respond to my input because of that.  I'm not sure why.  But other than those small defects, I can't complain.  The sound quality of calls is outstanding.  The programs are sleek and cool, and the web browser is so good, no other device can compete with its ability.  It also has a cool factor.  Its such a cool looking device.  Its worth every penny, and recommend it for anyone who has a phone and an ipod.  If you do not own an Ipod, its not worth it.  Thats the review of the day.