How Does It Work?

To start backing up, you need to first install the Mozy software, which is available for both Mac and Windows. Once installed, the easy-to-use interface lets you choose which files you want to backup on the Mozy servers. There are some predefined backup sets that you can choose to let Mozy decide how to do it. For example, if you want your e-mail to be backed up, choose the Outlook or Apple Mail backup set. Other sets include Firefox Favorites, IE Favorites, Word Processing Documents, iCal, Keynote Presentations, and many others. Backup sets make it easy, as Mozy will figure out which files need to be backed up for you.

The backup sets aren't good enough for me, as I want to backup the code for my websites and my database backup files. Mozy lets you choose any files and directories on your computer easily. Click on the screenshot to the left showing my backup configuration on my Mac, where my Ruby on Rails code resides. I checked the "rails" folder and a few of the subfolders underneath.

Once you tell Mozy which files and directories you want backed up, you can set a schedule for how often Mozy will send backups to its servers. Or you can let Mozy perform the backups whenever your computer is idle. Note that Mozy will only backup changes to your files. It won't waste time by uploading files that haven't changed since the last backup. Nice.

Mozy allows you to include more than one computer in your account. I've got my server, which runs Windows, and my laptop, which is a Mac. Mozy backs up the database backups from the server, and my website code from my laptop. Both the Mozy website and the Mozy client software keep track of how much data is being stored from each computer. The website will even tell you when each machine was last backed up, so you don't need to log in to each computer to check the status of your backups. It's a simple feature that's makes the service even more convenient to use!

What Doesn't Mozy Do?

Mozy is not a "file archive" service. It is a remote backup service. What's the difference? A file archive service lets you upload files where they will be stored and never changed unless you change them yourself. A backup service like Mozy will keep backups of the latest versions of your files. If you delete a file from your computer that Mozy had been backing up, then Mozy assumes that you don't need it anymore. From their FAQ: "If you delete the working copy on your machine and then run a backup, Mozy will assume that you no longer need a backup copy, since you got rid of the working copy, and will mark the file to be removed from our system in 30 days. (We keep it on file for 30 days, just in case you change your mind.) After 30 days, you cannot get these files back."

So, you can't upload all your vacation pictures to Mozy and then delete them from your hard drive. If that's the kind of service you're looking for, then Mozy isn't going to help.

Also, you can't share files with others. You can't backup a file to Mozy and tell your friends to download it.

Let Mozy Do What You Should Have Been Doing All Along

Mozy is a backup system for your files. If your computer gets stolen, or your hard drive goes up in smoke, or a meteor crashes into your house, Mozy will be there to restore your files to the way they were a few days or hours before tragedy struck. That's what Mozy does, and it does it automatically. Tell Mozy what to backup, and it will do it all by itself, without asking you to do anything. Set it and forget it.

In my opinion, Mozy does what computers should do for us. Why should I have to worry about such mundane tasks as keeping backups of my files, keeping track of which files have changed recently, and finding a safe place to store my backups? Our computers need to be more autonomous, making decisions for us. Even the most tech savvy computer users make bad decisions when using and maintaining their computers. It's about time that software starts doing these things for us, and Mozy is one of those products that does that for me. MozyHome is free, so give it a try.




Confession: Yes, the links in this article are referral links! I can make a few dimes and nickels by recommending Mozy to you. Nevertheless, my opinions are sincere. Managing data is a nerdy thrill for me, so Mozy is an exciting service because it's an elegant solution to an important problem. Anything that manages data automatically for me is awesome! Mozy was recommended by Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Financial Times and PC Magazine, so my glowing praise is hardly original.

The acting overall was good, with some great laugh out loud moments. Cowboy gave me some good laughs, especially when he tried to deny frequenting a website about hugging. Alan Thicke is a bit awkward as the father. I hope he can ease up on the fromage in future episodes. David W. Kopp was great as Ethan, suitably average but with geek flair orbiting him at all times. He plays the straight man in contrast to the abundance of comic relief, being the island of sanity in an otherwise absurd show.

The pop art interludes are a nice touch, being visual (and in my opinion better) versions of the ones in the book. After Kaitlin reveals that she’s from Florida, an interlude appears showing a Florida orange with snow falling on it, alluding to how frosty Kaitlin is to the other reluctant members of JPod. Cute.

The episode flew by at a fast pace, like most of Coupland’s books, and the closing scene left me wanting more. Finally, I’ve got something to watch on Tuesday nights! I recommend JPod to all geeks and programmers, and their family and friends who want a glimpse of what we do. It’s good enough to pull me away from my laptop for an hour, and that’s saying a lot!

(Confession: I had my laptop on my lap throughout the entire episode. I have no editor, so I'm not changing that last line.)

Now, time to play some Bonobo records.

The Good:

The Marksman: Playing the marksman class is great fun. Marksmen get to use many types of guns that are truly unique and can change the feel of gameplay a great deal. Using the Firefox (yes, Firefox) launcher is nothing like using a machine gun, and the option of using one small gun in each hand lets you have two different gun effects going off at the same time. I often chose to use two guns just because it was fun, even if it might have done less damage (which is hard to say... see later). The marksman doesn't suffer from the annoyances, bugs, and quirks of the other classes because you're just firing guns and shooting grenades. That's basically all there is to the class.

Weapon Sets: Hellgate lets you create three weapon sets that you can switch between using F1, F2, and F3. So, you can equip your machine gun on F1, equip two one-handed weapons on F2, and equip a sniper rifle on F3. This makes it feasible to switch between different weapons effortlessly so that you can use fire damage on monsters weak to fire, then switch to electrical damage for another monster, go into sniper mode with your sniper rifle, and so on. Setting up my arsenal of weapon slots was definitely fun, I'll give Hellgate that.


The Bad:

The Story: Wow, the story in this game is a stinker. I can hear some people protesting, claiming that Diablo's story wasn't very impressive either, and that no one plays an action-RPG for its story. But Hellgate's story is so bad it can't be ignored. I just can't bear the thought of playing through the last act again because it is so unbelievably stupid and painful to experience. The story is complete nonsense. I would say that the story was written while someone was on drugs, but I don't want to insult drugs like that. None of it made sense. None of it. The ending consists of fighting a demon who appears on the front of the game box, with very little explanation. Most disappointing villain ever. Diablo at least set up Diablo as this terrible demon who needed to be stopped. But the demon at the end of Hellgate has no history or story at all. Is it really so hard to foreshadow the end boss as a big bad guy?

The Writing: Ok, "writing" and "story" are basically the same thing, but I really hated this aspect of the game, so I'm including it in two sections. It's my blog and I can do what I want to! The writing is terrible. NPC dialog tries to be funny, but falls flat, and it gives very little information. Every NPC is a clown, cracking jokes or talking nonsense in a sad, sad effort to get a chuckle. Even worse is that some of the jokes are voice-acted so that you have to listen to them every time you want to sell your loot. It's ok for games to have humour, but it should be suitable in some way. Hellgate does a good job of creating a dark, post-apocalyptic atmosphere, but it is often ruined because all the NPCs are total buffoons. For the benefit of the Hellgate writers, here's the definition of "Toon" from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America website:

Toon. A comic relief character generally intended to be recognized as such -- Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are toons (most of Shakespeare's comic relief characters are toons). Toons have a limited place in fiction; an excess of them can render an otherwise serious work trivial. (CSFW: David Smith)

Cinematics: The cinematics in between each act are nonsense, much like the rest of the story. Without spoiling anything, they show a floating book. To accompany the floating book is a narrator who makes no sense at all. He just babbles some cliches and random words. Why even bother with cinematics if the writers have no content for them? Awful.

Skill Descriptions: Hellgate has skill trees like in Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft. Want to know what each skill does? You can try reading the skill descriptions, but they often won't help. To understand what most of the skills do, you need to spend precious skill points and try them. Since there's no way to get those skill points back, you'll end up wasting points on skills you don't like. The fix for this problem? Hire better technical writers. But you already know how I feel about the writing in this game... Unhelpful skill descriptions is just another symptom of a bigger problem with Hellgate. Alternatively, they could allow characters to "re-spec" (re-assign skill points any way you like), but I can understand why the game designers don't want to allow that.

Weapon Damage: Similar to the poor skill descriptions, it is very difficult to know whether one weapon is more powerful than another. All weapons have a number on them, but the meaning of that number is a mystery. It doesn't tell you how much damage you do, although that's what I assumed until finding a weapon with a much lower number that did a lot more damage than my current weapon. Most games now use the "damage per second" metric to tell you how much damage weapons will do, but Hellgate doesn't. Just like skills, the only way to tell the power of a weapon is to try it. Even then, it's hard to tell which weapons are more powerful most of the time.

Guide the Fist to Victory!: The quest "The Wall", where you must "Guide the Fist to Victory!" is a vomit-inducing stench of awful. It's unbelievable that someone at Flagship had played the quest, thought it was good, and decided to leave it in the game. This quest forces you to play a real-time strategy mission where you must control four useless soldiers from a top-down perspective and kill a boss somehow. The quest doesn't work well, and is completely broken in multi-player. If you do the quest in a party, every party member shares the same camera but controls different units. So, if you move north and your friend moves west, the camera can only show one person at a time, often oscillating between different viewpoints so that no one can see anything. Have no doubt, you and your friends will be yelling and screaming at each other in frustration. If you want your friendship to survive, you'd better start laughing about how bad the quest is. It's actually pretty funny. Flagship, what the hell? This quest is deplorable. And what's worse is that there is another quest like it closer to the end of the game. You will again need to control a unit in the same way (The Lightning), and it's just as bad.

Dismantle: The game has what I thought was a good feature at first. Instead of dropping items or carrying them back to town to sell, you have the option of dismantling loot to get small, stackable scraps that can later be used for crafting, upgrades, or selling. In theory, it's a great feature that improves on the Diablo formula. But soon you'll find that you're spending a good chunk of your time using the game's awkward interface to dismantle the hundreds of useless items that you picked up, one at a time. If you see your party members standing still instead of helping you in a fight, you can be sure that they are busy dismantling their items. In other games, you would suspect that they lost their internet connection or their computer crashed. But in Hellgate, they are dismantling items. This problem can be easily fixed with a "dismantle all" button or "dismantle all non-magic items". Titan Quest fixed this problem by giving you the option to ignore all non-magic and/or inferior items that drop. You won't even see them, so they'll never find their way into your inventory. Hellgate could easily add the same feature and it would go a long way to make the game more fun.

Levels: By themselves, I rather like most of the tile sets in the game. I especially like fighting in the London streets, the ruins of pubs, flats, and cars all around. The problem is that after you have been playing for a few hours, you have seen nearly all the level designs. After a few more hours, you will be dying to see some colours besides brown and grey. Set pieces like the British Museum and Piccadilly Circus are a welcome relief, and are very well done. Also, the game claims to be randomizing the levels, but I don't see it. Every street level looks the same to me. Every sewer, the same. Every basement, the same. Every hell citadel, the same. I'm sure there are slight variations, but the randomization is far too subtle to provide any variety. Also, since the game has the word "hell" in the title, you would think that hell would be an impressive place. Nope. Hellgate features the most boring, unimpressive rendition of hell I've ever seen. As for the hellgate itself, it provided the funniest moment in the game for me. When I first saw it, I thought I was looking at a rainbow. "Oh, isn't that pretty! Oh wait... that's the hellgate!? Mwahahaha!" If only the NPCs were that funny.



Conclusion

Ok, I think I've pummeled Hellgate: London for long enough now. It's bruised and bleeding, and I almost feel bad about it. The game can be pretty fun to play, although I didn't enjoy most of the classes. As a marksman, I had some good times. Hellgate is not beyond hope, given another year or two of development.

I tried to play it a couple of times lately, but couldn't get back into it. I don't want to dismantle any more items! I don't want to guide the Fist to victory ever again! The final level with the guy on the cover of the box is torture and I don't want to do it! There are too many things in the game that aren't fun.

If you're looking for a good action-RPG released in the past few years, I highly recommend Titan Quest. I can't recommend Hellgate: London to anyone for any reason.

Much of my joy in Oblivion comes from my characters. I like to take lots of screenshots of them. And now they look so much better. I can now use the “self shadows” option, which means that their clothing, armor, weapons, and other body parts (arms, nose, cheek bones, etc.) cast shadows onto the character. I’m playing a character who is often sneaking through the shadows, so seeing him wearing a hood that cast shadows over his eyes is video game geek heaven! Skulking in the shadows is way more fun now!

Another advantage to this simple, cheap upgrade is how well it handles the dense, lush forests in the game. Combat in the grassy forests always brought my computer to a crawl with my old nVidia 6800GT, giving me about 5 to 10 frames per second, which was a bit frustrating. Now forest battles are glorious and gorgeous.

Self-shadows is still my favorite feature though. Seeing the shadow of my sword on the goblin’s face right as it’s coming down will never get old.

If your computer is in need of a quick fix, check out the 8600GTS. It seems to be a prime time to upgrade right now, and this card delivers a lot of power at a low cost.

Oh, and for fun, check out a realistic and hilarious review of BioShock. Apparently, I’m not the only one who noticed how much of Fallout was stolen... I mean, how inspirational Fallout was to BioShock. I can’t embed the video here, so you’ll have to check it out at The Escapist.

Overall, I found that Phoenix was a much better wizard movie than the previous movies. All the magic was more powerful, and the locations were more fantastical and wondrous. I especially liked the locations of the wizards' headquarters, all done up with marble and lit by magical light and green flames. Now that's what I want to see in a Harry Potter movie! The film is well paced, leading to a great climax with powerful magic that I've always thought was lacking in earlier films. Battles between wizards should be powerful and epic, and finally we see the clash of mighty wizards dueling.

Go see it. There aren't very many fantasy movies that portray magic like this, so it's a rare treat. Good times.

One scene has the Invisible Woman trying to understand why the Silver Surfer says he has no choice but to destroy the Earth. Jessica Alba delivers the worst line of the movie with equally awful acting skill: “You’ve always got a choice!” The horror of this scene was so shocking that I turned my head away from the screen, groaned, and then said “Oh shut up!” a little too loudly. Alba’s performance throughout was embarrassing, but this scene was especially amateur. We can’t blame Alba alone for the horrible scene she had to work with. Shame goes to the writers and director, and maybe to the editor who could have deleted all trace of this scene to spare us the horror.

Ioan Gruffudd’s (Mr. Fantastic) performance was also weak. This was disappointing, since I know he can act. Time to watch some Horatio Hornblower again. The personality of Mr. Fantastic was muddled and inconsistent. He was supposed to be a nerd, a genius, and a leader, while delivering bad puns and lame jokes. Gruffudd did a passable job when he was allowed to play the leader, but failed as the dancing, elastic, comical nerd. Why does every character have to crack jokes and perform visual gags throughout the movie? I would like to see Mr. Fantastic played as the straight man in future iterations of this franchise, if it’s allowed to continue.

However, even when he wasn’t cracking jokes, he was given plenty of crappy lines. For example, he used the term “cross-reference” too many times, and it doesn’t seem like the writers even know what that term means. Mr. Fantastic’s scientific computers were flashy and showed nonsense. All of his science talk was laughable. No effort was made to do research.

The Thing’s performance is worse than Alba’s, in my opinion. I attribute this to the rubber suit and disgusting synthesized voice with which actor Michael Chiklis had to deliver his (bad) lines. He looks like a cheddar cheese creature. That suit looks nothing like stone. Who looked at that suit and said, “Yes, that is what The Thing looks like.” Idiots. It looks like a big, delicious cheese man.

Chris Evans (Human Torch) gave the only good performance of the movie. His character was well-defined and he played it well. He could actually deliver the bad lines without inducing a groan or even a flinch. That’s a skill that is much needed in geek genre movies, like fantasy, sci-fi, and superhero. If you can’t deliver awkward, campy lines, then you shouldn’t be in geek movies.

The Silver Surfer was well done, and grabbed my interest enough so that I look forward to the Silver Surfer movie which is being written by J. Michael Straczynski, the mastermind behind Babylon 5. With a good script and a decent superhero, we might have a good movie on our hands. The Surfer was the only guy in the movie who wasn’t delivering bad jokes, so that’s probably why I liked him. Let’s hope that doesn’t change.

See Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer if you can stomach bad dialog delivered badly. The special effects are good enough to get you through this 90 minute film, but not good enough to forget that you’re being taken for a ride, and not the good kind.