A Theory about the Cases in the TV show "Castle"

I recently started watching the popular contemporary television show "Castle". For those who don't know it.

It started off, because I enjoyed Nathan Fillion (the main actor) in his previous stint in Firefly and a friend of mine suggested watching Castle instead, after Firefly was viciously cut far too early by those faint of heart always profit oriented brutes from the FOX network.

Anyhow, after I borrowed the first three seasons on DVD from a store and had in each case 3 days to watch them... Well, let's just say that was a lot of Rick Castle for once, but it was enjoyable. One thing I came to notice, though, was that after the first half of Season 2, I was able to guess who the murderer was and in some cases even the motive. I am wondering whether this is the trick to the majority of written murder-mystery cases.

The general layout of a typical one episode murder case in Castle goes a little bit like this:

First scene, some innocent person/people happen(s) to come across a body in a strange place (if it is a woman, she screams...). They arrive on the scene and there is one strange detail that is first confusing them, then has a random explanation and the answer leads them to the right place. A good example for that is Episode 4 of Season 3 called "Punked", where the body was found naked down to his underwear, but the wallet was found in a trash bin nearby. Later it was found that a homeless guy took the clothes (Simple explanation that had no connection to the murder), but the clothes were actually a costume depicting a gentleman from the Victorian era, leading them eventually to their murderer.

I must say that, because I just watched Episodes 1-8 of Season 3, these are most fresh in my mind and will most likely be all the examples there are ;).

The next part is the crucial bit where they stake out the case. Almost invariably at some point during these first 15 to 20 minutes the murderer will have his entrance. But in all cases, his relationship to the victim will not be clear and he/she is entirely innocent looking. Examples for this are many and it is hard for me to explain why I knew this. An example that sticks out most freshly in mind is in Episode 2 of Season 3, "He's Dead, She's Dead", where they spoke with a mother and her daughter who had an appointment with the psychic shortly before she got killed. They "remember" a very angry man about to enter right after they left who happened to be a mobster who lost big on real estate because of the psychic. Usually I notice these characters, because they send the investigation on a new, invariably trail that will lead them back on track through several old 1966 Batman-esque deduction skills.

But obviously you don't know that it is a false trail, but they tend to be very eager to please the investigators' questions. Honorable mentions go to Beckett's old mentor in Episode 3 "Under the Gun". There I knew when he took a picture with Beckett just in front of their murder investigation board (And thus getting inside information). And the last, very obvious one, where I even got the motive sort of right was Episode 5 "Anatomy of a Murder". I knew it was the brother of the well-known hardcore evil gangster who got old and had a heart attack, but survived and fell in love with his young but hot, now murdered cardiac surgeon. That is another very strange little thing. It is never the obvious crook. There are always some characters with a history of illegal activities, but they tend not to be the murderer, at best an accomplice (Otherwise it would be boring).

In a last vain attempt at explaining how I know that these people are the murderers, here are some criteria: They are never the obvious choice. You always meet them in the first third of the episode. They generally send the investigation in a different direction and sometimes even give them a suspect with a history of illegal activity or a puppet shadowing their crimes or taking the fall.

Having said that, one fun Castle episode would be when they have a body turning up, then the evidence lead them to a guy who has a very strange alibi. Next scene, Lt. Esposito comes to Castle and Beckett and "instead" of saying: "Your guy <name>... His alibi checks out, he really was <his alibi>", he should say "You know, your guy <name>. I wish he really at least tried to come up with a better alibi. Not only is his alibi contradicted by twelve different people, he was also caught on camera by one of the parking lot surveillance cameras committing the murder and then he waved at the camera..."

Then the remaining 20 minutes of the episode you either see them just fool around playing Paintball with Beckett destroying them all at it, or they just do nothing apart from cracking very bad, but funny jokes all the time. To top it all off, the parts where Castle interacts with his family, his far too adult darling daughter will fuck up majorly and Castle really has to tell her off and ground her for a year or so. That girl is the least credible character in the series...

But enough of that. If you find any holes in my theory, let me know.

RPG Music'N'SFX - Docstrings are honking useful!!!

I've decided to really revise the documentations of my code today, mainly due to the fact that there hardly is any ;). Also when I haven't had the time for awhile to look into this little project of mine, I didn't have a clue what kinda things I sometimes did and why.

So then I figured, if I want to do it, I may as well do it according to the official guidelines. Said it and whipped out those badboy PEP 257 - Docstring Conventions. Apart from being pretty vague, they are actually quite good </sarcasm>.

I have to be honest, though, doing them at first was as boring as writing can get. Very repetitive and uninspiring, but then I noticed something. An 'A-Ha'-effect if you wish. I noticed an error in my code. A minor one due to sloppiness, but nonetheless an error and I would have not caught it, if it wasn't for writing those bloody docstrings! Then I noticed potential problems in my code or inconsistencies, simply because I went back over it again, because I wanted to document my code.

What I want to say is that these darned docstrings aren't just useful for other people, but for me, too1 It already saved me some hassle, that would have bitten me in the a** about two weeks down the line. I like it, it allows for preventing minor flaws and helps me seeing potential errors and exceptions, which I can then prevent by putting in appropriate fail saves.

In conclusion, I have to say, docstrings are honking useful!

When gaming gets stressful

So, I was playing my old PlayStation 2 yesterday, because I am still not through all my games and I always avoided GTA: San Andreas. Mostly because I cannot identify with that HipHop culture, in general, and the main character, in particular. But finally I get round to it and I am at the point where I was able to fight for territories.

This was becoming a rather stressful affair if you ask me. It didn't help that I was dating Denise Richards at the same time. At some point, it really was hilarious. So I took her out for a date and afterwards I go to get some more territories. It just so happened that I started getting into a fight with some Ballas boys, when my cell phone rings and Denise demands some attention (Women! I tell y'all, it's no fun :D). So I stop that petty gang war business to get together with that one, when it just comes to pass that some other gang is challenging my territory.

At this point, I got a twitch on my left eye and was having those funny Al Bundy-esque thoughts constantly cussing under my breath "Goddamit woman! What are you bringing me into!"

:D It was funny how stressful it was for me :D

DSA: Frauen in Aventurien

Als ich heute meiner Frau von der regeltechnischen Gleichberechtigung der Frau in Aventurien erzählte, sind mir urplötzlich ein paar recht eigenartige Gedanken gekommen, die ich gerne mit jemanden teilen wollte.

Ich ging immer der Annahme nach, dass die Autoren des Schwarzen Auges der Einfachheit halber keinen expliziten Unterschied von Mann und Frau in den Eigenschaften gemacht haben (Mann KK und KO +1 und für die Frauen? Schwierig, schwierig und regeltechnisch unfair).

Daraus hat sich aber so ein wenig auch entwickelt, dass Frauen in den meisten Kulturen (Orks mal ausgenommen) gleichgestellt sind. Bei Thorwalern prügeln sich Mann und Weib immer um zu entscheiden, wer auf Kaperfahrt darf und wer bei den Kindern bleibt. Ich finde diese Ideen hervorragend und als ich von den Ferdoker Lanzerinnen in diesem einen DSA Schundroman gelesen habe (wie hieß der noch... Der Scharlatan?) fand ich das alles noch viel toller. Jedoch...

Von einem biologischen Standpunkt aus, heißt das dann, dass der Hormonhaushalt einer Frau im Grunde genommen gleich ist, wie der eines Mannes? Da dies ja eine Fantasiewelt ist und die Rasse Mensch an die unsere angelehnt ist, kann man "meistens" davon ausgehen, dass es sich gleich verhält. Der Magen wird also wohl eher nicht in der Achillesferse zu finden sein und das Hirn mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit nicht am linken Ellbogen.

Man darf aber nicht die Fakten des Spieles außer Acht lassen. Frauen sind genauso stark wie Männer. In der echten Welt, sind Männer auf Grund des Hormonunterschiedes generell kräftiger gebaut und ihre Muskeln wachsen schneller als bei Frauen. Dies ist ja offensichtlich nicht der Fall.

Kann man jetzt davon ausgehen, dass Frauen bis auf ihre Brüste genauso leicht Muskeln und Definition aufbauen können wie Männer? Somit auch eindeutig männlichere Gesichtszüge haben? Will heißen prominenter Gesichtsknochen, weil dickere Knochen etc. Evtl. wechselt ihr Hormonhaushalt erst zu der einer typischen Frau, sobald sie schwanger sind.

Ich finde diese Frage sehr lustig, weil sie irgendwie mein Weltbild zerstört. Denn ein höherer Testosteronspiegel heißt auch mehr Aggression. Somit besteht die aventurische Welt nur aus Mannweibern, die sich genauso zünftig prügeln wie jeder daher gelaufene Alrik (unter der Annahme, dass "nur" das Verhältnis der Hormone anders ist). Die Situation in der ein verweichlichtes Männchen eine kräftige Frau darum bittet seinen Koffer zu tragen und diese galant und Gentlewoman-like darum kümmert in der Hoffnung auf ein bisschen Geschlechtsverkehr ist dann auch nicht so abwegig.

Oder eine Gruppe von Weibern, die nach einer Sauftour soweit jenseits von gut und böse sind und nur noch einen flach legen wollen. Ich bin mir nur nicht sicher, auf was sie da starren. Männer starren im volltrunkenen Zustand bekanntlich nur auf die Brüste. Große Titten. Check. Dünner als ich. Check. Wenn du sie küssen willst, rennt sie nicht weg. Check. You got yourself a one-night-stand. Bei Männern nenne ich es gern den Spermablick. Der Blick, der dir sagt, dass außer grundlegenden motorischen Funktionen da oben im Stübchen nichts mehr vor sich geht.

Im Generellen könnte man wirklich jede klassische Situation mit den bekannten Geschlechterrollen vertauschen und somit komplett ins Lächerliche ziehen. Ich könnte diesen Gedankengang solange weiter spinnen, bis ich zu einem Punkt komme, an dem die Welt an sich nicht mehr existieren kann (Wenn alle nur geil auf Prügeln sind, wer kümmert sich dann mit Zuneigung, um die Kinder?).

Was so eine kleine Entscheidung am Anfang für tolle Stilblüten nach sich ziehen kann :-D .

The perfect fart

If you are a man, who grew up in a standard neighbourhood these sentences may sound familiar to you: loud and proud, silent but violent (variation: silent but deadly), smell my wrath... the list goes on.

Yes, we are talking about farting. We had a another 13+ hour session of roleplaying yesterday and it was good. But I shall not talk about this. What I will talk about is why I almost felt sorry for the train passengers who sat next to me for two hours plus, after I indulged into the following items of consumption:

Beer, Chili, Chips, Beer, Snacks, Energy drink and some Beer followed by some Chili and before that I had some dairy stuffs in the morning.

I think this is the perfect combination. The Chili supplies the beans for propulsion fuel and spices give bouquet. Beer helps to make a homogeneous melange and adds the finer notes of the smell for the connoisseur. The Energy Drink rounds the mixing process off and increases bowel movement for faster output. The fatty and salty snacks are like engine oil to increase output rate and last but not least, for those with the pre-disposition to an afterburner (lactose intolerance), may indulge in the dairy products.

The next day, I enjoyed the worst piece of anal cough one has ever heard. They were both loud as to be shouted out into the world with pride as well as slightly moist on exit as to suggest a dangerous bouquet (shortly after verified by nose-driven analysis). As I mentioned, I had a long train journey afterwards, and I almost felt sorry for my neighbouring passengers. I didn't in the end, because they will realise that they witnessed a master's craftsmanship.

I was pleased...

P.S. I wish I could give you a test sample, but PCs may have a come a long way, but senses of smell are not among them yet...

My Opinion on the Republican Presidential Elections

So the Super Tuesday is nearing where all the wanna be Republican presidents can gain a majority of delegates for their presidential campaign (wikipedia tells me it is 410 this year). Soon it will be known who will challenge Barack Obama in the next US elections.

Although, I am European and it doesn't affect me in any way, whatsoever, I see this presidential campaign with mixed feelings. The coverage on the news pages, I frequent, were fairly in depth (check out spiegel.de and bbc.co.uk), so I have a pretty good overview over the main events and blunders..., I think.

Although, in my humble opinion, there is no politician who isn't a backstabbing, double-crossing, untrustworthy sack of crap, it has to be said, that already the elections for the Republican Candidate take the mickey. What does it take to become the "candidate" (Note: not the president) for the presidential elections? It isn't anymore about finding the best candidate in the US. In their overzealous, righteous bullshittery, the media and the people who organise the campaigns have created a system, in which the guy who can conceal and lie about his flaws and misconduct best, while shitting and pissing on the other candidates, wins.

I have to reiterate here, that I am actually very much against the American political landscape (especially the one that affects me, a foreigner). I find the fact, that they take finger-prints at airports and treating travellers like criminals is degrading foreigners' dignity and I wanna see what US businessmen would do, if they are treated the same way on arrival to Europe. The outcry and the call for human rights and equal treatment would be ridiculous.

However, in this case, I think the pressure build up and the constant scrutiny of US media is just not right. I always assumed the best candidate for the job is also the most competent. How does one define competence in this case? Is it managerial skills? Knowledge of politics around the globe? Diplomatic ability? Once you are elected, all these skills are indispensible.

To me, however, it seems to be something entirely different once it comes to the road to the presidency. It is about being a role-model to everyone. Now, this sentence may sound very idealistic. "You have to be a role-model." In fact, I think, the one thing a leader of a nation does not have to be, is an effing role-model. Politics is a dirty business and you need to be able to take a sucker punch or two and dish one out when the occasion calls for it, while at the same time, if it suits you, you have to be best friends with the person who just almost sucker punched you into retirement. Opportunistic is an adjective that I would need to give a good president (or any successful politician), ruthless, greedy and a very mild onset of megalomania are some others. Usually, these are negative aspects, but in this case, I think they are essential in order to hold your own (and in a sense your country's own) when in negotations in order to get as much profit out of it as possible.

Unfortunately, to the general public, this is unfathomable and unspeakable. The result is a hypocrite. A man who condemns all the things that he does himself just to become president. The offshoot are media who become overly personal and highlight a candidate's private life more so than his competencies. How else is it possible that they open a debate with questions about the candidate Newt Gingrich's private life? Yes, what he has supposedly done to his ex-wife is despiccable, but it has nothing to do with his political competencies. If he is a backstabbing son-of-a-bitch, all the better. He does the dirty work shoveling shit, while he preserves the glorious and pure and clean Christian lives of the standard, middle-class US citizen who in turn is then disgusted if bad details about someone's life comes to the surface (while in many cases they are just as bad, only on a smaller scale). So in this case, I like his answer to the question.

While we're at it. Let's go look at some of the other candidates. Let's look at Mitt Romney. Yes, the country is in recession and poverty is high, but is it false to admit that you are a millionaire? Is it false to say that your wife drives a couple of cadillacs? It isn't the best way to rub it in, when a large chunk of your potential voters does not have the ability to even look at a bunch of cadillacs. But again, it is perceived that it is bad to be rich and that you ahve to apologise for it. A rich guy tends to be a successful guy. A maker, as they say. Success comes in various shapes, but it generally is not a bad thing. Maybe, he is good at creating successful companies, ergo places to work and a boost to the economy and thus bringing the country out of recession. I wouldn't condemn him for admitting to having a lot of money or for having a bunch of cars at home. The media witch hunt over the amount of tax he pays a year is ludicrous. If the tax loop holes exist, then it is legal to use them. I am sure, you would if you were aware of them. Change legislation if you don't like them. Bottom line is, it is extremely unlikely that a presidential candidate will ever come out of the working or the middle class. These guys are all well-off financially. So why is one guy getting crucified for being richER than the others?

Next one, I have recently read about. Rick Santorum. Now before this goes into a biased rant that has nothing to do with the topic, let me say, that I am strongly against any monotheistic religion of any kind, may it be Christianity, Islam, Jewish or any other that I forgot to mention (I can't say anything about polytheistic ones like Hinduism, because I don't know enough about it). So any slight against fundamental Christians has to be excused. But (the big but) why on earth is religion a big topic in politics?!? Why should we care, that he thinks it is better to have children after marriage than before? He does it all to gain the votes of the very devout Christians, but it really takes more to run a state than to preach celibacy until marriage and twisting the ten holy commandments into obscurity so that they fit your bidding. Personally speaking, religion should not be a factor in ANY political election. Once you introduce religion, it is very hard to take sides. Hardly anyone has the luxury of being born to completely non-religious parents. My parents are very liberal, but they still have the catholic label. Introducing religion into elections is simply fishing for votes. That's all there is to it. However, once you are president, you will not only have to deal with one religion that gave you the votes, you have to deal with all of them. And just remember, your great American nation said that all are created equal, bro. Now you are up shit creek, because the other religious fanatics will stir up shit and they will not believe you, because you are from the other side. So, I think, in a perfect world, Santorum shouldn't even be a candidate. Everything he has going for himself is christian, conservative mumbojumbo. He has not shown to be competent, just... devout and a little bit homophobic. This is, however, also a great witch hunt example by the media. They throw random quotes at him and make him say things, he may not want to say. In this case, I am kinda glad. But that is just a personal opinion, because I don't like the man much. I really hope, it didn't show in the paragraph.

My last specimen, that is a bit of a counterpart to the ones above is good ole Rick Perry. Now, in his case, I guess that he lost his following, is justified, because he was not able to give one of his main political changes (see below for not remembering the Ministry of Energy and the 'Oops'-moment). I cannot and I also don't want to imagine the pressure that the people exposed to, but this is the counter example to competent. Presentation is a big part of almost any well-paid job and you need to have this nailed. He failed, like so many other people in a job interview (me included in several instances) and as a consequence he did not get the job.

Conclusively, what I am probably trying to say with this rant is, that I am a big fan of getting the right guy for the job. Currently, I don't feel that the credentials needed for a presidential campaign are necessarily the right credentials for BEING president. You may end up with a guy who is awesome at winning the campaign but not at being the president or someone who is just a puppet of the industry (Iwillnotsayanynameswhatsoever).

Of course, ideally, what you wanna have, is a guy (or girl) that is a good citizen and a person to look up to who doesn't do anything wrong. A knight in shining armour kinda guy who rides into peril to rescue the damsel in distress. But let's be honest, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan was there a damsel to be rescued? In turn, what damsel did the Americans rescue when they invaded Afghanistan some time later? I say it again, you don't need a role-model. All you need is a knowledgeable, diplomatic hipocrite who will look at every opportunity that presents itself to further the chances of its nation in order for the small man to go about his business and live a relatively peaceful life.

The media shines such a big light on the people that are candidating and nothing is sacred anymore. I would find it an intrusion into my private life, if an employer asks me in an interview to tell him what my sexual practices are or my religion, while in a presidential campaign this is common ground. I think, the people should get real and get away from this televised inquisition.

A kingdom for a sarcasm tag...

I have noticed a lot lately that these days people write in chats and forums the way they speak in every day life. First and foremost, to myself, who was tortured... sorry... "classically educated" until I wrote everything correctly (within a minimal margin of error) both in English and in German, this is plain horrible.

I will not go into the details why I find it cringeable when native speakers do not see the difference between there and they're or when I need 5 minutes to wrestle the hidden meaning from a three line forum post. I will go into something, that has been holding me back quite a bit. Namely, the fact, that it is impossible to use different intonations, which would make, for example, the difference between a serious and a sarcastic statement.

I admit it, I love sarcasm and irony. It is said that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." But quite frankly, I had the feeling that, so far the people I have met who said this, didn't really know how to use it or didn't understand it. Sarcasm when used correctly (same as irony), can make someone, who has been spouting utter nonsense, aware of his mishap without having to potentially humiliate him in front of others. In the same vein, it can be one of the best retorts ever. I am a very sarcastic person and I enjoy it. It makes me smile. For example, one of the main characters in the Guy Ritchie film Snatch, Turkish, is a sarcastic bastard and I love that movie for his quotes alone. The rest is just the cream on top :D

Anyhow, back to the point. In forums and chats, it cannot be used, because you would have to highlight it somehow. I would very much favour a forum, where you could use intonation tags. Using a different font (switch from Times to Arial) or something like that, I don't care what, but it would be awesome. True, part of the sarcastic appeal is, that it remains hidden to some, but c'mon a slimmed down version is better than nothing :).