So recently there was a fairly unimportant topic regarding WoW that came up.
Lots of people talked about it, but you really don't care about any of them.
I read a lot of blog posts on the subject, partly because I found them interesting and partly because I didn't have time to sit down and read a book.
While I was reading these blogs, I began to notice something odd. It was present in most of the blogs and obvious almost from the moment I began reading, though I shrugged it off the first few times.
I noticed this, almost every sentence was separated out by two carriage returns.
Really, it looked exactly like this. Nearly a dozen blog posts where the sin of joining two sentences together was only brooked when one was sufficiently short.
I'm a person who's fairly big on writing and the theory behind doing so; these kinds of minutiae tickle my cerebrum in happy ways.
I can only describe this style of textual organization with one word, disjointed.
Reproducing the effect is difficult for me because I simply do not write in that style, but down to the very core of the text each sentence felt like a separate, lonely thought loosely connected to what came before and awaited after, drifting in a sea of confusion.
Some blog entries had the good grace to figure out halfway through that people were now in it for the long haul and one might be allowed to write complex sentences or even paragraphs -- sweet relief!
Not many did. This caused me great sadness.
Usually the last sentence was very short, as though the author petered out.
-----------------------------------
I can no longer maintain that facade, as doing so is causing my sanity preservation systems to suffer intolerable stress. Do the people of the internet truly think in minuscule, disconnected chunks? The nature of the byte is such, but surely not humanity. To continue would be to lessen myself as a sentient being, or at least deny my nature until I am forever broken.
Perhaps it is the modern education, or modern media, that has effected this madness.
We live in a culture of sound bites and flashy, brief declarative statements made without useful context or connection. The use of such constructs like paragraphs or even letters fades in the face of ever briefer bursts of communication. In concordance with our shorter attention spans, we are inclined to process data in smaller chunks.
Woe to us, however, if this permeates our psyches to the point where even our very thoughts become microscopic. There is beauty in the connections between ideas, events and memories, in the smooth flow of a whispering, fluid stream of mentality. Blending each instant of consciousness into the next is our assurance -- alas, the dreamless night that robs us of our security -- of our connection to our past and future selves. When thought itself becomes a series of brief flashes of notion, separated by clean breaks without context or binding ties, we lose the breadth and width of creation for a tiny, shallow world where nothing exists outside of the moment.
Perhaps I go too far in my waxing of philosophy, but even that askewed or even abusive misuse of the idiom warms me with ties to memories of my father chiding me for my malapropisms and many other connections which, in being stirred together in one motion, creates something both fearful and joyous. If I go too far, I at least have the confidence that my error only leads to dreams and abstract notions that encompass more and more of creation.
Still, I wonder if I am a time-lost relic, for as often as I am similar to my peers I am again so dissimilar as to wonder if I wasn't left on the doorstep of my generation by fourth dimension-traversing gypsies.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
20100417
20091111
Zoom zoom.
My mother often complains about movies being too much like video games. It was for this reason that she didn't like the recent Star Trek film. At the time, I had a factual understanding of her complaint, though I lacked a visceral understanding. Academically speaking, her issue was that directors enjoy swooshing a camera in and around the action, but for people who don't habitually subject themselves to this kind of visual overload it's too much to keep track of.
Last night I totally went bonkers for the same reason as my mother.
After dining with my grandparents, we turned on the television to give ample time for digestion before desert. Choosing to edify ourselves through PBS, we watched as NOVA discussed human ancestry and anthropology, likely due to some recent discoveries in the field.
I can't really be sure, because I was horribly distracted by the director's incredibly annoying camera work.
Our new generations have grown up in an era where information is instantly available, where attention spans are ever shorter, and where video games now involve flailing in front of the television. I can understand that NOVA, as it was when I was a kid, has to expend some effort updating its methods of operation to match the changing times. To remain the same is to become a fossil.
That said, they should find better directors.
There are a lot of tools at a director's disposal. The more obvious the tool, the less often it should be used. Otherwise the viewer becomes aware of the tool and it ceases to be illuminating. Instead, it beings to obscure in proportion to how much it is abused.
The director of this episode of Nova had an obsession with two forms of zoom. Form one was to start close to a picture, just enough that most of the important bits weren't visible, and then quickly zoom out to a fuller view with an graphical blur and refocus, accompanied by an audible whoosh. Form two was to start zoom out from a picture, just enough that most of the interesting bits were too small to make out, and then zoom in with the same graphical and audible effects as the other form.
The intent was obviously to make pictures of skeletons and anthropologists exciting. However, the frequency with which these zooms occurred, and the short duration the technique alloted to actually look at the skeletons or interesting photos, created a situation where it was nearly impossible to actually appreciate whatever it was the director wanted you to look at.
I could almost have sworn there were two little kids fighting over the zoom function on the camera, all while talking in whoosh noises.
In addition to this visual repetition, the program itself was arranged with many, many repeated narrations. I can scarcely remember just how many times the narrator said, "For the first time in X years...", "Then, there was an amazing discovery...", and similar phrases. I could potentially see the worth in continually repeating the weird names of the skeletons, given that they aren't easy to remember of learn. But for the love of variety don't say the name with exactly the same inflection, tone, pitch and feeling every single time.
The whole presentation felt like a broken record being played over a projector with bits and pieces of a child's wild drawings thrown in. By the fifth amazing discovery I couldn't bear to watch it anymore. Not that I could have seen anything anyway what with all the blur-zooming going on. It might have been better if there wasn't that conspicuous whooshing noise there every single time.
Grr. Get off my lawn!
Last night I totally went bonkers for the same reason as my mother.
After dining with my grandparents, we turned on the television to give ample time for digestion before desert. Choosing to edify ourselves through PBS, we watched as NOVA discussed human ancestry and anthropology, likely due to some recent discoveries in the field.
I can't really be sure, because I was horribly distracted by the director's incredibly annoying camera work.
Our new generations have grown up in an era where information is instantly available, where attention spans are ever shorter, and where video games now involve flailing in front of the television. I can understand that NOVA, as it was when I was a kid, has to expend some effort updating its methods of operation to match the changing times. To remain the same is to become a fossil.
That said, they should find better directors.
There are a lot of tools at a director's disposal. The more obvious the tool, the less often it should be used. Otherwise the viewer becomes aware of the tool and it ceases to be illuminating. Instead, it beings to obscure in proportion to how much it is abused.
The director of this episode of Nova had an obsession with two forms of zoom. Form one was to start close to a picture, just enough that most of the important bits weren't visible, and then quickly zoom out to a fuller view with an graphical blur and refocus, accompanied by an audible whoosh. Form two was to start zoom out from a picture, just enough that most of the interesting bits were too small to make out, and then zoom in with the same graphical and audible effects as the other form.
The intent was obviously to make pictures of skeletons and anthropologists exciting. However, the frequency with which these zooms occurred, and the short duration the technique alloted to actually look at the skeletons or interesting photos, created a situation where it was nearly impossible to actually appreciate whatever it was the director wanted you to look at.
I could almost have sworn there were two little kids fighting over the zoom function on the camera, all while talking in whoosh noises.
In addition to this visual repetition, the program itself was arranged with many, many repeated narrations. I can scarcely remember just how many times the narrator said, "For the first time in X years...", "Then, there was an amazing discovery...", and similar phrases. I could potentially see the worth in continually repeating the weird names of the skeletons, given that they aren't easy to remember of learn. But for the love of variety don't say the name with exactly the same inflection, tone, pitch and feeling every single time.
The whole presentation felt like a broken record being played over a projector with bits and pieces of a child's wild drawings thrown in. By the fifth amazing discovery I couldn't bear to watch it anymore. Not that I could have seen anything anyway what with all the blur-zooming going on. It might have been better if there wasn't that conspicuous whooshing noise there every single time.
Grr. Get off my lawn!
20081021
Rant: A House Divided
You've seen it on the news, in the papers, across the internet and from the podium. Apparently John Edwards was only half right in talking about the "two Americas". There are two Americas divided by reality, not the poverty lines of Edwards' mantra.
According to Sarah Palin, Nancy Pfotenhauer and Michelle Bachmann America is divided into the Pro or "real" America and the Anti or "fake" America. If you're curious as to what exactly they said Jon Stewart can elaborate, though not without a few explicitives.
I am utterly beside myself in awe. It is beyond my understanding, my comprehension, my basic faith in the fundamental goodness imbued in us by God's own image that these kinds of sentiments can exist. Sparta? This is madness!
That precipitous insanity is the single most disturbing milestone of this election. The unruly and isolated extremists making a name for themselves at McCain rallies and on YouTube were stomach turning, Revered Wright was troubling, but this is above and beyond all other competitors. Unless McCain calls for his loyal supporters to rise up as an army against socialism, to bear their arms and strike out against the demonic liberals seeking to corrupt their nation, nothing can possibly dethrone this critical failure in rational thought.
There is no rational thought process to find here, no workable logic by which one can disqualify the very city that has defined America for decades. This crass and banal division of America is an unconscionable attack on the "other". "America" is now a buzzword for neoconservatives, not a country. Do not mistake their fervor for nationalism. What we see is entirely, and completely, about a national clique in its death throes.
The Republicans have an important choice, either toss the extremists off the ship or let the whole thing sink. It's a difficult choice because extremists are almost always activists, and activists are extremely important to running campaigns. Ceding such a significant amount of power is a painful suggestion, but it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it's the best thing to do as anything else gravely risks complete self destruction.
Whatever happens, I'm still shocked and discouraged that these sentiments have been so boldly and carelessly thrown onto the airwaves by such important people. We have already eroded our foreign relations, must our internal ones suffer as well?
According to Sarah Palin, Nancy Pfotenhauer and Michelle Bachmann America is divided into the Pro or "real" America and the Anti or "fake" America. If you're curious as to what exactly they said Jon Stewart can elaborate, though not without a few explicitives.
I am utterly beside myself in awe. It is beyond my understanding, my comprehension, my basic faith in the fundamental goodness imbued in us by God's own image that these kinds of sentiments can exist. Sparta? This is madness!
That precipitous insanity is the single most disturbing milestone of this election. The unruly and isolated extremists making a name for themselves at McCain rallies and on YouTube were stomach turning, Revered Wright was troubling, but this is above and beyond all other competitors. Unless McCain calls for his loyal supporters to rise up as an army against socialism, to bear their arms and strike out against the demonic liberals seeking to corrupt their nation, nothing can possibly dethrone this critical failure in rational thought.
There is no rational thought process to find here, no workable logic by which one can disqualify the very city that has defined America for decades. This crass and banal division of America is an unconscionable attack on the "other". "America" is now a buzzword for neoconservatives, not a country. Do not mistake their fervor for nationalism. What we see is entirely, and completely, about a national clique in its death throes.
The Republicans have an important choice, either toss the extremists off the ship or let the whole thing sink. It's a difficult choice because extremists are almost always activists, and activists are extremely important to running campaigns. Ceding such a significant amount of power is a painful suggestion, but it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it's the best thing to do as anything else gravely risks complete self destruction.
Whatever happens, I'm still shocked and discouraged that these sentiments have been so boldly and carelessly thrown onto the airwaves by such important people. We have already eroded our foreign relations, must our internal ones suffer as well?
20081020
Rant: Dollar Voting
Don't waste your vote by not voting.
You've heard it from the demographically obsessed media, X group is more important than Y group because they actually get up and vote. Politicians target people who vote or they lose. It's as simple as that. Not voting sends a clear message to them, "I'm not worth your time".
This is a clear and obvious aspect of politics from the local to the national level, those who participate get things done.
Corporate America is exactly the same. People often talk about "voting" with their money, but this is usually in the context of choosing between a purchase and saving rather than picking between a number of purchasing options. Companies don't track failed sales, they track the people who buy their products. They don't give any heed to people who just save their money, looking instead at who is going to their competitors and why.
Keep this in mind if you're avoiding a purchase or spurning a choice between two political candidates you hate. If you want to send a message, staying home and keeping your vote to yourself only leaves the decisions up to someone else. Even if you throw it at Joe's Custom Built Rickety Fridges/Political Candidates your vote is better used than if it isn't used at all.
You've heard it from the demographically obsessed media, X group is more important than Y group because they actually get up and vote. Politicians target people who vote or they lose. It's as simple as that. Not voting sends a clear message to them, "I'm not worth your time".
This is a clear and obvious aspect of politics from the local to the national level, those who participate get things done.
Corporate America is exactly the same. People often talk about "voting" with their money, but this is usually in the context of choosing between a purchase and saving rather than picking between a number of purchasing options. Companies don't track failed sales, they track the people who buy their products. They don't give any heed to people who just save their money, looking instead at who is going to their competitors and why.
Keep this in mind if you're avoiding a purchase or spurning a choice between two political candidates you hate. If you want to send a message, staying home and keeping your vote to yourself only leaves the decisions up to someone else. Even if you throw it at Joe's Custom Built Rickety Fridges/Political Candidates your vote is better used than if it isn't used at all.
20080930
Pet Peeve: Web Pages with "Free" Signups
I don't read the New York Times online. This is inconvenient, but I do it as a matter of principle.
There is, in my humble opinion, absolutely no reason to sign up a "free" account for such services. What's the point if it's free? What benefit do you, the reader, gain from having this superfluous hoop to jump through?
You might say, "Well, this allows them to customize the default page to my interests". News Flash: That's a nice feature, but why does this require that they block me from reading articles?
You might say, "Well, what's the harm in setting up the free account?"
This just in: Giving out your personal information unnecessarily is bad. That and I don't particularly like the oblique attempts at making me a part of their mailing list/random offers.
You might say, "Just make up someone and get a bogus free account!"
Editorial:
What we are suggesting here is that in order to circumvent a silly and superfluous concept, readers should fill in the free account with gobbledygook. This is an activity that generally doesn't require much time and effort.
This does not change the fact that the existence of this arbitrary barrier is unnecessary. This does not change the fact that it only serves as a tool by which they take your personal information, your browsing habits, and your email and use them for personal gain. All this does is allow me, one person, to circumvent the system and confuse their numbers.
Will I? No way.
I'm too deeply offended by their assumption that I, like the gibbering masses of uninformed internet browsers, am so ingratiated to them for publicizing their articles on the internet that I will gladly join their Big Brother Club and subject myself to their scrutiny. It's a needless hassle, a pointless hurdle, an inconvenient shenanigan and I won't even validate with a bogus account.
There is absolutely no benefit conferred to me by playing their games. I don't gain anything from having a free account between me and their articles. It's ridiculous and I will have none of it.
So you say, "Hey, it costs money to make that paper, they need to make cash somehow!"
Bulletin: The Washington Post and the Boston Globe don't cost money to view online, and they also don't require free accounts to do so. The whole account this is a voluntary perk, a benefit to those that truly want it.
If money was really a problem, they'd charge people to view it. As it stands they more than make up their operating costs on ads, and by suckering people into "free" accounts.
I treat all such institutions the same way. Any site that requires me to sign up to download something, to view something, or basically to do whatever it is I wanted to do with no noticeable benefit, I just turn the other way and go home.
I miss out on some nice things this way, but I think it's worth it.
There is, in my humble opinion, absolutely no reason to sign up a "free" account for such services. What's the point if it's free? What benefit do you, the reader, gain from having this superfluous hoop to jump through?
You might say, "Well, this allows them to customize the default page to my interests". News Flash: That's a nice feature, but why does this require that they block me from reading articles?
You might say, "Well, what's the harm in setting up the free account?"
This just in: Giving out your personal information unnecessarily is bad. That and I don't particularly like the oblique attempts at making me a part of their mailing list/random offers.
You might say, "Just make up someone and get a bogus free account!"
Editorial:
What we are suggesting here is that in order to circumvent a silly and superfluous concept, readers should fill in the free account with gobbledygook. This is an activity that generally doesn't require much time and effort.
This does not change the fact that the existence of this arbitrary barrier is unnecessary. This does not change the fact that it only serves as a tool by which they take your personal information, your browsing habits, and your email and use them for personal gain. All this does is allow me, one person, to circumvent the system and confuse their numbers.
Will I? No way.
I'm too deeply offended by their assumption that I, like the gibbering masses of uninformed internet browsers, am so ingratiated to them for publicizing their articles on the internet that I will gladly join their Big Brother Club and subject myself to their scrutiny. It's a needless hassle, a pointless hurdle, an inconvenient shenanigan and I won't even validate with a bogus account.
There is absolutely no benefit conferred to me by playing their games. I don't gain anything from having a free account between me and their articles. It's ridiculous and I will have none of it.
So you say, "Hey, it costs money to make that paper, they need to make cash somehow!"
Bulletin: The Washington Post and the Boston Globe don't cost money to view online, and they also don't require free accounts to do so. The whole account this is a voluntary perk, a benefit to those that truly want it.
If money was really a problem, they'd charge people to view it. As it stands they more than make up their operating costs on ads, and by suckering people into "free" accounts.
I treat all such institutions the same way. Any site that requires me to sign up to download something, to view something, or basically to do whatever it is I wanted to do with no noticeable benefit, I just turn the other way and go home.
I miss out on some nice things this way, but I think it's worth it.
20080828
Rant: Stories and MMOs
So my brother made a blog post a few days ago about MMOs, and that spawned this thought process.
The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.
But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.
The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.
What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.
In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.
It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.
Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?
But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.
Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.
The problem with having a story in an MMO is that inevitably there are too many actors. Everyone wants to be the hero, but you can only have to many heroes without a story feeling cheap (see Sluggy's recent commentary on respawning evil quest mobs). When the NPCs are the supporting actors, you end up having hundreds, thousands, even millions of star actors.
But that's entirely the wrong train of thought. MMOs don't need a story, or at least those that I've played. The story is the players themselves.
The weakness of such MMOs isn't that they limit what players can accomplish. Players have no final effect on their environment aside from their effect on other players, which could hypothetically be part of the motivation of griefing. This lack of investment in the Player's ability to shape their environment is ignoring the strongest pull for play.
What you need aren't the tools for players to design their own worlds, but to have an effect on their own world. To have players create by playing.
In an MMO where cities can be sacked, leaders killed, nations conquered the players are motivated to make history. They can recall "I was at the battle of Fanador, and was at the forefront of the suicidal charge through the gate". They can say, "Ah yes, I gave my life defending the King of Pelas". They can wax nostalgic, "It was I who furnished arms for the High Guard of Tornoth before they made their final, wild charge to death and glory." This is exciting, this is visceral, this is history.
It's the ultimate solution to the "consuming is easier than creating" problem. For almost everyone reading history is infinitely more boring than making history. Give the reins of history into the hands of players and you have the truest form of digital crack possible.
Granted, there are amazing hurdles to surmount. Balance is a nightmare, the disconnect between impermanent death and permanent world effect could be offsetting, what are the incentives for being a part of the wars, and what if the scale makes it too much like the real world where the effect of one person feels too small?
But these are problems equivalent to those other MMOs face today. The MMO I've described here has a completely different dynamic. It doesn't require leveling because your investment is in the world as much as the character. It doesn't requiring grinding the same mobs over and over again, battles will never be the same. It trades one set of problems for another.
Now someone read this post, steal the idea, and make the MMO for me. I'm lazy.
20080211
Rant: Election Ramblings
I'm publicly stating a lot of my political opinions here for several reasons. One, this is my personal space and I've always maintained that it is primarily here as an outlet for my thoughts and creativity. Two, I find it is probably best if I let my political thoughts be scrutinized by some of my politically active friends.
The number of remaining candidates in both races have thinned, although each is now sporting its own flavor. For the democrats we have a heated neck in neck battle, and for the republicans we have a sure race with a leader and a pair of runners who refuse to accept defeat. I'll touch on the latter first.
I don't have as much to say about the republicans because I'm not as invested in the outcome. The people I disliked have all dropped out, leaving my second choice in the lead and my first choice in second. While a lot of Huckabee's policies are described as insane, I have faith that the house and senate would regulate such matters. As it stands I'm rooting for him to keep going as it will keep McCain honest. Ultimately, I don't feel McCain's a bad candidate. It's refreshing for him to say outright that it might be necessary to stay in Iraq for decades, when for years his fellows have said otherwise. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to do so, but that's another matter altogether.
I'll probably write for a while about the democrats, for obvious reasons.
There's a lot of media attention flying around the democratic contest, probably because it is so gripping and shows little sign of letting up. While I'm sure McCain's camp is actively considering what strategy to pursue in either case, people are generally excited at seeing either the first woman or black presidential candidate.
The race is at a stalemate, and will be for another month. The last chance for a "knockout blow" comes March 4th, when the 255 pledged delegates held between Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island are decided.
Begin speculation.
My general gut feeling is that Hillary is on the ropes. Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the media, but there are a lot of little cues pointing to bigger problems. The removal of her campaign manager, the five million dollar investment in her campaign, her somewhat petty comments concerning Obama's recent string of victories, and polls showing stronger confidence in Obama's ability to best McCain all point to a campaign that is in trouble.
One of the biggest issues is one of money. It is speculative to say that the Clinton campaign is in a financial crisis, but I think it's very likely. Consider for the moment how easily Clinton is giving up on almost all of the states holding contests in February. That is not the tactic of a strongly funded campaign. In a system where delegates are awarded proportionally, it's foolhardy to avoid establishing a strong presence in any state, even ones where you're likely to lose. At this point, it seems obvious that any resources Hillary now possesses are being saved for the trifecta of contests on March 4th.
To continue the speculation, we can extrapolate something of Hillary's past strategy. It seems possible that she banked on February 5th being the day where she ascended above the competition, much as McCain did. Unlike McCain, her "victory" was indecisive at best and even fictional depending on how you look at matters. The result is a lot of money, probably most of it, spent for a tie.
Add to this equation Obama's significant cash flow and you have a recipe for disaster. According to reports, only 3% of those who have donated to Obama have donated the maximum of $2300, whereas Hillary is in the opposite position. Even if both candidates spent the majority of their holdings on "Super Tuesday", Obama is in an excellent position to fight by attrition.
The worst part of this scenario is that it forces Hillary to do exactly what she did on February 5th. Even with her five million dollar influx, she can't afford to spend money on anything prior to March. She might even ignore Rhode Island, instead focusing entirely on Texas and Ohio. If March 4th plays out anything like February 5th, that effort will be wasted.
The other large issue is momentum. Rudy Giuliani spent an entire month in Florida ahead of his competitors. Despite that investment he was soundly beaten by two competitors and effectively tied one other. If momentum split between three candidates can bowl over someone so heavily invested in a contest, unified momentum could be unstoppable.
While momentum wasn't the only factor in Giuliani's loss, it's notable enough that many are making comparisons to Hillary's current strategy and Giuliani's. With Black History Month effectively called for Obama, a lot of eyes are looking to see if March 4th will signal the end of the "big state" strategy once and for all.
Lastly, there's little question as to who the democrat nominee will be facing in November. McCain is the frontrunner for the republicans by far, and polls show that Obama is given a much better chance against him than Hillary. With "Super Tuesday" having been a razor thin tie, any factor that could swing people away from Hillary is significant. There's always the chance for a miracle in the republican camp, but such a miracle will come far too late for Hillary.
In short, right now Obama has the money, the momentum, and the credentials. Even a loss on March 4th is unlikely to end his bid, unless it is very decisive. Meanwhile, Hillary is teetering on the edge. Her campaign could be over if she ties Obama in March, let alone if Ohio or Texas swing his way.
So is it all over? Is Hillary truly finished? Hah! As I said this is speculation, largely based on gut feelings established by reading articles, watching newcasts, and browsing comments from random people such as "obama08" and "prezhillary". If anything, this is analogous to those crazy conspiracy theories which begin plausibly enough and end with Zionist death rays on the moon.
It's entirely possible for Hillary to turn things around, for Obama to goof up, or for the second coming to render the whole thing moot. If Obama loses Virginia, for example, it would be a notable bump in his momentum, and bring up questions of his ability to crash through the March contests like a tsunami.
Personally, I don't see the status quo being upset in February (irony intended). Hillary's recent remarks concerning Obama's victories are sour at best, and offensive at worst. It's fair enough to downplay the importance of such victories, but it's another thing altogether to call caucuses undemocratic, and write off the importance of the African-American vote.
Those comments are a small part in why I'd never vote for Hillary. I've met a large number of people via my leadership position in my World of Warcraft guild. I've interviewed lots of potential candidates who wanted into our group, and I've turned away quite a few. Hillary shares a number of attributes with these people. There are disturbing parts her speeches that are all too reminiscent of various leeches and sycophants that sought into our guild not for the friendship but for the rewards we could carry them to. Her answers to questions are always self-oriented with lip service paid to key people or concepts. Overall, she hasn't given a clear idea of who she is. To top it off, her remarks she makes when she wins or loses point to arrogance and needless pride. If I were interviewing her for a position, I wouldn't be inclined to let her in.
Were Hillary to win the democrat nomination, she would have an uphill battle convincing me to vote for her. I'd be likely to vote for McCain, but if he loses my confidence I will have no hesitation writing in Obama, Huckabee, or Ron Paul come November.
So there you have it. To some effect that's my prediction for the days to come. It's rambly and will probably bear out to be largely inaccurate, but I needed to get that off my mind a bit.
The number of remaining candidates in both races have thinned, although each is now sporting its own flavor. For the democrats we have a heated neck in neck battle, and for the republicans we have a sure race with a leader and a pair of runners who refuse to accept defeat. I'll touch on the latter first.
I don't have as much to say about the republicans because I'm not as invested in the outcome. The people I disliked have all dropped out, leaving my second choice in the lead and my first choice in second. While a lot of Huckabee's policies are described as insane, I have faith that the house and senate would regulate such matters. As it stands I'm rooting for him to keep going as it will keep McCain honest. Ultimately, I don't feel McCain's a bad candidate. It's refreshing for him to say outright that it might be necessary to stay in Iraq for decades, when for years his fellows have said otherwise. I don't think it's worthwhile for us to do so, but that's another matter altogether.
I'll probably write for a while about the democrats, for obvious reasons.
There's a lot of media attention flying around the democratic contest, probably because it is so gripping and shows little sign of letting up. While I'm sure McCain's camp is actively considering what strategy to pursue in either case, people are generally excited at seeing either the first woman or black presidential candidate.
The race is at a stalemate, and will be for another month. The last chance for a "knockout blow" comes March 4th, when the 255 pledged delegates held between Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island are decided.
Begin speculation.
My general gut feeling is that Hillary is on the ropes. Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the media, but there are a lot of little cues pointing to bigger problems. The removal of her campaign manager, the five million dollar investment in her campaign, her somewhat petty comments concerning Obama's recent string of victories, and polls showing stronger confidence in Obama's ability to best McCain all point to a campaign that is in trouble.
One of the biggest issues is one of money. It is speculative to say that the Clinton campaign is in a financial crisis, but I think it's very likely. Consider for the moment how easily Clinton is giving up on almost all of the states holding contests in February. That is not the tactic of a strongly funded campaign. In a system where delegates are awarded proportionally, it's foolhardy to avoid establishing a strong presence in any state, even ones where you're likely to lose. At this point, it seems obvious that any resources Hillary now possesses are being saved for the trifecta of contests on March 4th.
To continue the speculation, we can extrapolate something of Hillary's past strategy. It seems possible that she banked on February 5th being the day where she ascended above the competition, much as McCain did. Unlike McCain, her "victory" was indecisive at best and even fictional depending on how you look at matters. The result is a lot of money, probably most of it, spent for a tie.
Add to this equation Obama's significant cash flow and you have a recipe for disaster. According to reports, only 3% of those who have donated to Obama have donated the maximum of $2300, whereas Hillary is in the opposite position. Even if both candidates spent the majority of their holdings on "Super Tuesday", Obama is in an excellent position to fight by attrition.
The worst part of this scenario is that it forces Hillary to do exactly what she did on February 5th. Even with her five million dollar influx, she can't afford to spend money on anything prior to March. She might even ignore Rhode Island, instead focusing entirely on Texas and Ohio. If March 4th plays out anything like February 5th, that effort will be wasted.
The other large issue is momentum. Rudy Giuliani spent an entire month in Florida ahead of his competitors. Despite that investment he was soundly beaten by two competitors and effectively tied one other. If momentum split between three candidates can bowl over someone so heavily invested in a contest, unified momentum could be unstoppable.
While momentum wasn't the only factor in Giuliani's loss, it's notable enough that many are making comparisons to Hillary's current strategy and Giuliani's. With Black History Month effectively called for Obama, a lot of eyes are looking to see if March 4th will signal the end of the "big state" strategy once and for all.
Lastly, there's little question as to who the democrat nominee will be facing in November. McCain is the frontrunner for the republicans by far, and polls show that Obama is given a much better chance against him than Hillary. With "Super Tuesday" having been a razor thin tie, any factor that could swing people away from Hillary is significant. There's always the chance for a miracle in the republican camp, but such a miracle will come far too late for Hillary.
In short, right now Obama has the money, the momentum, and the credentials. Even a loss on March 4th is unlikely to end his bid, unless it is very decisive. Meanwhile, Hillary is teetering on the edge. Her campaign could be over if she ties Obama in March, let alone if Ohio or Texas swing his way.
So is it all over? Is Hillary truly finished? Hah! As I said this is speculation, largely based on gut feelings established by reading articles, watching newcasts, and browsing comments from random people such as "obama08" and "prezhillary". If anything, this is analogous to those crazy conspiracy theories which begin plausibly enough and end with Zionist death rays on the moon.
It's entirely possible for Hillary to turn things around, for Obama to goof up, or for the second coming to render the whole thing moot. If Obama loses Virginia, for example, it would be a notable bump in his momentum, and bring up questions of his ability to crash through the March contests like a tsunami.
Personally, I don't see the status quo being upset in February (irony intended). Hillary's recent remarks concerning Obama's victories are sour at best, and offensive at worst. It's fair enough to downplay the importance of such victories, but it's another thing altogether to call caucuses undemocratic, and write off the importance of the African-American vote.
Those comments are a small part in why I'd never vote for Hillary. I've met a large number of people via my leadership position in my World of Warcraft guild. I've interviewed lots of potential candidates who wanted into our group, and I've turned away quite a few. Hillary shares a number of attributes with these people. There are disturbing parts her speeches that are all too reminiscent of various leeches and sycophants that sought into our guild not for the friendship but for the rewards we could carry them to. Her answers to questions are always self-oriented with lip service paid to key people or concepts. Overall, she hasn't given a clear idea of who she is. To top it off, her remarks she makes when she wins or loses point to arrogance and needless pride. If I were interviewing her for a position, I wouldn't be inclined to let her in.
Were Hillary to win the democrat nomination, she would have an uphill battle convincing me to vote for her. I'd be likely to vote for McCain, but if he loses my confidence I will have no hesitation writing in Obama, Huckabee, or Ron Paul come November.
So there you have it. To some effect that's my prediction for the days to come. It's rambly and will probably bear out to be largely inaccurate, but I needed to get that off my mind a bit.
20080131
Rant: Adolt
My sister linked an interesting article on the state of single graduate men, a subject that has been on my mind a fair amount.
I don't particularly like the article actually. It sounds too much like another bemoaning of the lack of marriageable bachelors with only small lip service to any causes or solutions thereof. Besides, there are plenty of marriageable young men, we just don't hang out in bars.
If I had to cite a cause for the "adolt" condition, I'll have to callously point to the systems in which our youth are raised. Both the formalized public school system and the society of teenagers within it encourage young men to be unmarriageable. To a large extent this carries over into college and thereafter.
Basically, the school system encourages students to avoid setting goals, and it is the exception rather than the rule which strives for excellence. At the same time the school's student culture favors beefy, physically mature guys over sensitivity and respect.
I could go into more detail, but it gets a little too personal and blame heavy for me to comfortably rant on the subject. Suffice it to say that these kinds of articles are extremely frustrating and even infuriating for marriageable bachelors.
I don't particularly like the article actually. It sounds too much like another bemoaning of the lack of marriageable bachelors with only small lip service to any causes or solutions thereof. Besides, there are plenty of marriageable young men, we just don't hang out in bars.
If I had to cite a cause for the "adolt" condition, I'll have to callously point to the systems in which our youth are raised. Both the formalized public school system and the society of teenagers within it encourage young men to be unmarriageable. To a large extent this carries over into college and thereafter.
Basically, the school system encourages students to avoid setting goals, and it is the exception rather than the rule which strives for excellence. At the same time the school's student culture favors beefy, physically mature guys over sensitivity and respect.
I could go into more detail, but it gets a little too personal and blame heavy for me to comfortably rant on the subject. Suffice it to say that these kinds of articles are extremely frustrating and even infuriating for marriageable bachelors.
20071031
Review: Sea of Shadow
Be forewarned, this is going to be less a review and more of a rant.
I recently began and finished a book titled The Twelve Kingdoms: Sea of Shadow. A Japanese high fantasy novel, it was recommended by a friend. Incidentally, it's also been converted into anime form.
Before I delve too thoroughly into the book I'll give some context as to why I am going to be so harsh toward it. Quite simply, the end left me disappointed. I was willing to forget the novel's flaws because of its significant merits, but then it was abruptly over. It was so sudden and incomplete that it reminded me of when someone is in the middle of a sentence and they
I probably wouldn't even be writing this if it didn't bother me so much. The book wasn't good, it was fantastic. The story, the characters and the world were all excellent, though not flawless. What kills me is how amazing everything was right up until the point where it ended.
The story builds magnificently towards a climax that never comes. It opens up thousands of questions that are never answered. For all intents and purposes our heroine checks off box #1 on her list of "epic achievements I need to complete before this story ends", magically checks off box #2 in about two pages of story, and then we get checkboxes #3 through #7 in a brief history-like epilogue that lasts two paragraphs. Meanwhile, we have answers to burning questions #1 through #7, but #8 through #33 are left completely unanswered.
For those of you who have read Tolkien, imagine it like so. What would you have felt like if the story had ended immediately after Bilbo escaped Gollum with the Ring? It's certainly a milestone in the story; a worthy achievement of our shoeless shorty. It is not, however, where anyone in their senses would recommend to stop.
Disappointed probably isn't the right word to describe how I felt when I reached the end. I felt betrayed. Through the course of the book and the revealing of the small, subtle details chiseled into the author's world was the feeling of a promise, a sworn oath of a great story that in concluding would open up the world to greater epics. It felt like the Hobbit; an incredibly engrossing introduction into a larger universe. Then, without much warning other than the waning number of remaining pages, it ended before it was even halfway there.
It is almost as if the author, excited at the prospect of writing the greater epic, cut short the all too important introduction. That or perhaps the publisher wasn't going to wait any longer for the book to actually be finished.
There really isn't an effective way to convey the confusion, mild anger, buzz kill, and other assorted negatives I felt when I closed the book, knowing that it was all over.
I can only sit here and wonder, why is the fun gone?
I recently began and finished a book titled The Twelve Kingdoms: Sea of Shadow. A Japanese high fantasy novel, it was recommended by a friend. Incidentally, it's also been converted into anime form.
Before I delve too thoroughly into the book I'll give some context as to why I am going to be so harsh toward it. Quite simply, the end left me disappointed. I was willing to forget the novel's flaws because of its significant merits, but then it was abruptly over. It was so sudden and incomplete that it reminded me of when someone is in the middle of a sentence and they
I probably wouldn't even be writing this if it didn't bother me so much. The book wasn't good, it was fantastic. The story, the characters and the world were all excellent, though not flawless. What kills me is how amazing everything was right up until the point where it ended.
The story builds magnificently towards a climax that never comes. It opens up thousands of questions that are never answered. For all intents and purposes our heroine checks off box #1 on her list of "epic achievements I need to complete before this story ends", magically checks off box #2 in about two pages of story, and then we get checkboxes #3 through #7 in a brief history-like epilogue that lasts two paragraphs. Meanwhile, we have answers to burning questions #1 through #7, but #8 through #33 are left completely unanswered.
For those of you who have read Tolkien, imagine it like so. What would you have felt like if the story had ended immediately after Bilbo escaped Gollum with the Ring? It's certainly a milestone in the story; a worthy achievement of our shoeless shorty. It is not, however, where anyone in their senses would recommend to stop.
Disappointed probably isn't the right word to describe how I felt when I reached the end. I felt betrayed. Through the course of the book and the revealing of the small, subtle details chiseled into the author's world was the feeling of a promise, a sworn oath of a great story that in concluding would open up the world to greater epics. It felt like the Hobbit; an incredibly engrossing introduction into a larger universe. Then, without much warning other than the waning number of remaining pages, it ended before it was even halfway there.
It is almost as if the author, excited at the prospect of writing the greater epic, cut short the all too important introduction. That or perhaps the publisher wasn't going to wait any longer for the book to actually be finished.
There really isn't an effective way to convey the confusion, mild anger, buzz kill, and other assorted negatives I felt when I closed the book, knowing that it was all over.
I can only sit here and wonder, why is the fun gone?
20071004
Rant: Several Steps to Better Thinking
Regret is a dish best served microwaved.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally there are several events in my life ranging from absolutely pathetically small to "How did I ever do something that was so monumentally in defiance of my basic, underlying principles and beliefs?" which reheat themselves from time to time and remind me of how I've failed in the past. Feelings of guilt, sorrow and the aforementioned regret take over until such time as the leftovers cool again and recess back into the depths of my sadistic subconscious. Approximately 101% of these events happened principally because of one reason.
I wasn't thinking.
Actually, it's somewhat deeper than that. I certainly was thinking at the time, but at a significantly reduced quality than standard. There wasn't a lack of awareness of what I was doing, or even a lack of self-consciousness, but a distinct absence of several streams of thought which normally keep those extremely idiotic suggestions from being carried out.
The severity of some of my transgressions troubles me deeply; they represent the kind of failings I very often criticize in others. I suppose I pride myself on my ability to think logically and rationally in any situation, such that when I fail to do so in a common situation I normally have mastery over it is humbling to say the least.
In any case, I'm a firm proponent of proper thinking. Proper thinking requires three things.
1) Awareness of oneself.
2) Awareness of one's environment.
3) Awareness of what assumptions are being made, and why.
The absence of any of those three spells immediate failure to engage in effective thought. They are three pillars that are unable to support an active mind should any fail. The more pillars that fail, the more startling the wake-up call is.
For example, one of my more silly regrets was counting pennies out of a "give a penny, take a penny" in Spanish. I was ten at the time, and my awareness of myself was limited to the language I was speaking, the environment constrained to the pennies, and I had no awareness at all of any assumptions whatsoever.
When the store clerk angrily threw the pennies back into the small bin, it was a wake-up call that made me keenly aware of everything I'd been missing. A) My methodology for counting had been obnoxious and even condescending, B) The clerk was obvious Spanish himself, C) I had assumed it was okay to take 10 pennies from the bin, when I only had a nickel of my own. I ran out of the store crying.
My "vision" of all three points was narrow to the point of uselessness. My startling wake-up forced by the clerk's reaction helped me learn that one's mind must be wide open at all times or we do some very, very dumb things.
So, and without further ado, here are some steps to better thinking.
1) Stop.
2) Step back.
3) Observe.
4) Contemplate.
5) Test.
6) Conclude.
7) Repeat.
And to elaborate.
Step 1: Stop
The first step towards better thinking is to stop oneself from not thinking. Not thinking is the same thing as auto-pilot, and is a very easy thing to do. We do it on the way to work, in the grocery store, as we play video games, and even while watching movies with loved ones. When we are only doing and not thinking, we can end up getting ourselves in trouble.
Step 2: Step back
The second step requires us to pull ourselves out of our own perspective. This is probably the most difficult step. Pull away from where you are, even who you are, and get yourself in a position outside of yourself, where you are, and what's going on. This is so that we can more readily...
Step 3: Observe
In order to think straight, one must be aware of whatever facts are available at the time. Observe yourself, how are you feeling? What is on your mind? What was on your mind before? Observe the environment, are you shivering? Who else is there? What sounds are you hearing? What are you doing? Observe the assumptions, are you assuming it's okay to be out this late? To be falling asleep on this person's couch? To be eating hot wings?
Be careful not to get ahead of yourself. This is not the time for steps 4-7. You shouldn't be trying to figure out why you might think it's okay to eat hot wings, you should only note that you are assuming it is.
Step 4: Contemplate
Now that you have facts, it's time to evaluate them. Try and understand the hows and whys of the situation. For example, you have noted you are shivering. So we ask, "Why are you shivering?" We don't know, but we know that the room is not cold, so that can not be why. We know that you are feeling well, so unless this is a symptom of a sickness that is oncoming that can not be why. We know that a beautiful woman just rested her head on your shoulder. We also know that your heart jumped several beats. There is the possibility that you are shivering because of her.
Step 5: Test
If you're picking up on how this is similar to the scientific method, excellent. It is like the scientific method, and with good reason. When applied introspectively, accounting for factors both environmental and abstract, the scientific method is an "easy" way to be aware of what you're doing and why.
Unfortunately, this step is also very difficult. We have to ask, what is there to test? If we're trying to understand our feelings for someone, testing to see if we're shivering because of them doesn't have many sound environmental options (too many are likely to dramatically change the nature of the situation and alter far too many variables at once). Most situations require very specific, tailored tests.
In our current scenario, we have to ask ourselves "Do I like her?" as our test. The obvious answer is, "I don't know." Testing is now complete.
Step 6: Conclude
Conclusion is a very easy step. We have an answer to our test, and the answer is sound. "I don't know", while not helpful, is an answer. So, we move on to the next step.
Step 7: Repeat
This step is also straightforward. Go through all the steps again. Some of them will be significantly easier this time (unless you're getting all fluttery as you think, Stopping will be rather easy), and some of them will take more time (Contemplating "Why don't I know?" can take hours). However, this is the basic process by which one can think better.
Obviously these steps are largely guidelines. People think differently, and even my application of this method is not exactly in tune with this. However, it's a great starting point to figure out where your mind rails run.
The major advantage to thinking effectively is a much keener awareness of who you are, and why. People who think effectively aren't afraid to have a highly skeptical person ask them, "Why do you believe in God?" not because they can talk about what God has done for them, or how God speaks to them, but because they can answer the skeptic on their own terms. For example:
"It is obvious that I can not explain why I believe in God to you by describing my experiences through prayer. It is doubly obvious that I can not conclusively prove God's existence by my experiences in prayer, in church, or at other times. It is entirely possible that I am delusional to the point of being committable to an asylum. However, I believe in God (in summary) because the Big Bang doesn't explain where the matter came from in the first place. Neither the matter nor God have any better scientific explanation for their existence except that they have to be. At the same time, humanity has an observable need for spirituality among other aspects of the universe that point to but do not prove the possibility of a greater being. So long as I do not cease challenging my assumption that God exists, I judge this belief to be healthy."
I may not agree with all of the beliefs of James Randi, but I respect him a lot for his willingness to challenge his own and other's assumptions and beliefs. I enjoy reading about him, what he does, and watching his videos on youtube because he asks the fundamental questions many people overlook. "Why?" and "How?"
Having a similar ability to think rationally, actively, and without ceasing will help one in everything from video games, to gardening, to blogging. Although, it certainly didn't help me keep this short.
Thanks for reading.
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally there are several events in my life ranging from absolutely pathetically small to "How did I ever do something that was so monumentally in defiance of my basic, underlying principles and beliefs?" which reheat themselves from time to time and remind me of how I've failed in the past. Feelings of guilt, sorrow and the aforementioned regret take over until such time as the leftovers cool again and recess back into the depths of my sadistic subconscious. Approximately 101% of these events happened principally because of one reason.
I wasn't thinking.
Actually, it's somewhat deeper than that. I certainly was thinking at the time, but at a significantly reduced quality than standard. There wasn't a lack of awareness of what I was doing, or even a lack of self-consciousness, but a distinct absence of several streams of thought which normally keep those extremely idiotic suggestions from being carried out.
The severity of some of my transgressions troubles me deeply; they represent the kind of failings I very often criticize in others. I suppose I pride myself on my ability to think logically and rationally in any situation, such that when I fail to do so in a common situation I normally have mastery over it is humbling to say the least.
In any case, I'm a firm proponent of proper thinking. Proper thinking requires three things.
1) Awareness of oneself.
2) Awareness of one's environment.
3) Awareness of what assumptions are being made, and why.
The absence of any of those three spells immediate failure to engage in effective thought. They are three pillars that are unable to support an active mind should any fail. The more pillars that fail, the more startling the wake-up call is.
For example, one of my more silly regrets was counting pennies out of a "give a penny, take a penny" in Spanish. I was ten at the time, and my awareness of myself was limited to the language I was speaking, the environment constrained to the pennies, and I had no awareness at all of any assumptions whatsoever.
When the store clerk angrily threw the pennies back into the small bin, it was a wake-up call that made me keenly aware of everything I'd been missing. A) My methodology for counting had been obnoxious and even condescending, B) The clerk was obvious Spanish himself, C) I had assumed it was okay to take 10 pennies from the bin, when I only had a nickel of my own. I ran out of the store crying.
My "vision" of all three points was narrow to the point of uselessness. My startling wake-up forced by the clerk's reaction helped me learn that one's mind must be wide open at all times or we do some very, very dumb things.
So, and without further ado, here are some steps to better thinking.
1) Stop.
2) Step back.
3) Observe.
4) Contemplate.
5) Test.
6) Conclude.
7) Repeat.
And to elaborate.
Step 1: Stop
The first step towards better thinking is to stop oneself from not thinking. Not thinking is the same thing as auto-pilot, and is a very easy thing to do. We do it on the way to work, in the grocery store, as we play video games, and even while watching movies with loved ones. When we are only doing and not thinking, we can end up getting ourselves in trouble.
Step 2: Step back
The second step requires us to pull ourselves out of our own perspective. This is probably the most difficult step. Pull away from where you are, even who you are, and get yourself in a position outside of yourself, where you are, and what's going on. This is so that we can more readily...
Step 3: Observe
In order to think straight, one must be aware of whatever facts are available at the time. Observe yourself, how are you feeling? What is on your mind? What was on your mind before? Observe the environment, are you shivering? Who else is there? What sounds are you hearing? What are you doing? Observe the assumptions, are you assuming it's okay to be out this late? To be falling asleep on this person's couch? To be eating hot wings?
Be careful not to get ahead of yourself. This is not the time for steps 4-7. You shouldn't be trying to figure out why you might think it's okay to eat hot wings, you should only note that you are assuming it is.
Step 4: Contemplate
Now that you have facts, it's time to evaluate them. Try and understand the hows and whys of the situation. For example, you have noted you are shivering. So we ask, "Why are you shivering?" We don't know, but we know that the room is not cold, so that can not be why. We know that you are feeling well, so unless this is a symptom of a sickness that is oncoming that can not be why. We know that a beautiful woman just rested her head on your shoulder. We also know that your heart jumped several beats. There is the possibility that you are shivering because of her.
Step 5: Test
If you're picking up on how this is similar to the scientific method, excellent. It is like the scientific method, and with good reason. When applied introspectively, accounting for factors both environmental and abstract, the scientific method is an "easy" way to be aware of what you're doing and why.
Unfortunately, this step is also very difficult. We have to ask, what is there to test? If we're trying to understand our feelings for someone, testing to see if we're shivering because of them doesn't have many sound environmental options (too many are likely to dramatically change the nature of the situation and alter far too many variables at once). Most situations require very specific, tailored tests.
In our current scenario, we have to ask ourselves "Do I like her?" as our test. The obvious answer is, "I don't know." Testing is now complete.
Step 6: Conclude
Conclusion is a very easy step. We have an answer to our test, and the answer is sound. "I don't know", while not helpful, is an answer. So, we move on to the next step.
Step 7: Repeat
This step is also straightforward. Go through all the steps again. Some of them will be significantly easier this time (unless you're getting all fluttery as you think, Stopping will be rather easy), and some of them will take more time (Contemplating "Why don't I know?" can take hours). However, this is the basic process by which one can think better.
Obviously these steps are largely guidelines. People think differently, and even my application of this method is not exactly in tune with this. However, it's a great starting point to figure out where your mind rails run.
The major advantage to thinking effectively is a much keener awareness of who you are, and why. People who think effectively aren't afraid to have a highly skeptical person ask them, "Why do you believe in God?" not because they can talk about what God has done for them, or how God speaks to them, but because they can answer the skeptic on their own terms. For example:
"It is obvious that I can not explain why I believe in God to you by describing my experiences through prayer. It is doubly obvious that I can not conclusively prove God's existence by my experiences in prayer, in church, or at other times. It is entirely possible that I am delusional to the point of being committable to an asylum. However, I believe in God (in summary) because the Big Bang doesn't explain where the matter came from in the first place. Neither the matter nor God have any better scientific explanation for their existence except that they have to be. At the same time, humanity has an observable need for spirituality among other aspects of the universe that point to but do not prove the possibility of a greater being. So long as I do not cease challenging my assumption that God exists, I judge this belief to be healthy."
I may not agree with all of the beliefs of James Randi, but I respect him a lot for his willingness to challenge his own and other's assumptions and beliefs. I enjoy reading about him, what he does, and watching his videos on youtube because he asks the fundamental questions many people overlook. "Why?" and "How?"
Having a similar ability to think rationally, actively, and without ceasing will help one in everything from video games, to gardening, to blogging. Although, it certainly didn't help me keep this short.
Thanks for reading.
20070918
Rant: Why to Homeschool
I think this documentary is reason enough.
The following is a series of comments I made to a friends blog upon watching that video. I'll note beforehand that this is all highly reactionary, and that homeschooling is a very large, very difficult undertaking. It is only worth it if you can remain dedicated for the 16-18 years it takes to educate your child in readiness for college. Any slacking can cause more harm than the public school system.
That said, we begin my commentary in three sections.
Section 1: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
This is going to be largely a running commentary on what I see. I was fine for the first seven minutes, until they got to the teacher protest. The following quote caused the reaction in the title.
"There is nothing that money can't fix."
Right, because money's fixed Iraq, it's fixed the blatant corruption running through our government (our politicians have oh so much money) and it's obviously a blanket panacea to all our problems.
Money alone is worthless. It is not the solution, it is only something that enables solutions. Assuming that money will solve your problems is as bad as assuming an unregulated and unchecked government will. Don't throw money blindly at something that isn't already working, or has no history of working.
At least they brought an intelligent person on board to point out how blatantly stupid the quoted statement was. Make that two people. Holy crap, that second guy's school is giving me strange shades of what people already do in Japan. Maybe that's not the only/best solution, but hey, someone has enough humility to look overseas for an alternative.
Concerning the guy who couldn't read... no duh 1v1 would have helped him incredibly. Same for the grandmother earlier who trained her daughter. There's a reason why home schooling is popular in homes that can support it. It has major drawbacks for everyone involved, but it'll do the job if you put in the effort.
We've finally reached the principle that should have been obvious to begin with. Bureaucracies and safety nets don't mix. So long as airlines, public schools etc. know the government will bail them out, there's no reason to make things better. Whether vouchers are the solution, I can't say.
Maybe I'm premature, but I've got that gnawing depression building in the back of me that's telling me that if anything is going to change, it's going to be because we dragged the people in charge kicking and screaming from their beds in the middle of the night and dropped them in a lake somewhere to make a point. This is one of those controversial and largely accurate reports that gets everyone mad, but remains to be seen whether it's enough to get them to act.
Section 2: MORE LOVE OF GOD
Look at the average SAT scores, South Carolina is tied (emphasis) for last at 993. Texas comes in slightly above at 995. Florida comes in at 996.
"We are ranked #1 in the country for improvement on SATs."
Congratulations, you still flunked, just not as poorly. I can't imagine how bad your students were doing before. Oh, so now we can't judge states by SATs. If you could provide us with another standardized test commonly used through the US, we'd be more than happy to oblige your blatant stupidity. Telling us you're making great progress is every intelligent manager's klaxon that something is horribly wrong. If you can tell me in detail what progress has been made, I'll believe you.
And apparently half the kids in South Carolina high schools can't graduate in four years. That might be okay for college given the various circumstances and notable difficulty of various fields of interest, but high school? It shouldn't take more than four years.
As an aside, companies are infinitely innovative at screwing you over with technology. Your phone service may now be cheap, but they're still needlessly preventing you from making your own ringtones on the cheap wherever they can. They've learned to be sneaky, but service is still better.
Oh they just hit another nerve, and I'm about to pour out the nerd.
In World of WarCraft, raiding must be done to get the best gear. Originally, raids consisted of 40 people fighting through a dungeon to this end. When Blizzard expanded on World of Warcraft, the new dungeons were only for 25 people (with a few capped at 10).
It is very difficult to convey exactly how much whining there was about this, and how very little all that whining reflected the vast majority of people playing. For a period of about a month if not longer, the general forum on the official website was practically plastered with topics on the subject, with a very large number of people expressing very loud and obnoxious disagreement with the idea.
Why would anyone do this? Because people are lazy scum bags. The truth of 40 person raiding was that at least 15 people were potentially afk, useless, or intentionally worthless. As few as 15 were doing all the work, because they were dedicated and awesome. Thus, Blizzard made a change to remove the leeching scumbags. The 25 person raids require 95% of everyone involved to be involved, and not just pushing a couple buttons while watching TV. Attention is required, because otherwise you'll miss out on the fact that the boss just began to cast an easily avoidable spell which will wipe anyone who wasn't looking.
Now, who would guess that lazy scumbags with job assurance would complain about losing that absolute security?
The vouchers or a similar system, should it be properly implemented, are a direct threat to the job security of the School Boards, the teachers, and the PTAs. Suddenly tenure is thrown out the window, because the school's survival suddenly depends on your performance. Slack off and you walk, because no principle wants to lose their cushy job (the obvious result of a failed school). Of course people who want to be able to sit on a job for 25 years without actually doing it would object to this.
Maybe the initial revision of school vouchers wouldn't allow children to attend the good private schools, but if it meant they could choose which of the public schools they went to it would at least begin to make things better. There'd be overcrowding for a while, as well as some undercrowding, but eventually equilibrium will be reached. If we let states like Texas and South Carolina who are already screwed try it out first, we can probably see how to do it with less pandemonium.
And low and behold, we now address unions, and how the exceptional get the same treatment as the mediocre. WOW I JUST COVERED THIS!
"There aren't really bad teachers."
And there aren't really bad players in World of Warcraft or Halo. And the internet is full of literate people. The war in Iraq will be over before Christmas. I have a hot and beautiful woman waiting for me in my bed when I get home tonight.
Section 3: ALRIGHT, THAT'S ENOUGH GOD LOVE
I think what ultimately gets me about these teachers is not that they have a monopoly, or that they protect those among them who are incompetent. What gets to me is that they literally are capable of holding our children's education hostage for their own ends. I don't think anyone should have that power. And saying it's the people who don't have that power who "don't really care about kids" really convinces me.
This really highlights the incredible danger of what a person will do for something they don't even know about themselves. People who are normally caring and compassionate will kill kittens in the right circumstances if there is the subconscious perception the felines are a threat to their secure existence. They don't even realize they're arguing against something cute and fluffy for selfish reasons.
Well it's over, and my semi-stream of consciousness is probably frightening.
Fin.
The following is a series of comments I made to a friends blog upon watching that video. I'll note beforehand that this is all highly reactionary, and that homeschooling is a very large, very difficult undertaking. It is only worth it if you can remain dedicated for the 16-18 years it takes to educate your child in readiness for college. Any slacking can cause more harm than the public school system.
That said, we begin my commentary in three sections.
Section 1: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
This is going to be largely a running commentary on what I see. I was fine for the first seven minutes, until they got to the teacher protest. The following quote caused the reaction in the title.
"There is nothing that money can't fix."
Right, because money's fixed Iraq, it's fixed the blatant corruption running through our government (our politicians have oh so much money) and it's obviously a blanket panacea to all our problems.
Money alone is worthless. It is not the solution, it is only something that enables solutions. Assuming that money will solve your problems is as bad as assuming an unregulated and unchecked government will. Don't throw money blindly at something that isn't already working, or has no history of working.
At least they brought an intelligent person on board to point out how blatantly stupid the quoted statement was. Make that two people. Holy crap, that second guy's school is giving me strange shades of what people already do in Japan. Maybe that's not the only/best solution, but hey, someone has enough humility to look overseas for an alternative.
Concerning the guy who couldn't read... no duh 1v1 would have helped him incredibly. Same for the grandmother earlier who trained her daughter. There's a reason why home schooling is popular in homes that can support it. It has major drawbacks for everyone involved, but it'll do the job if you put in the effort.
We've finally reached the principle that should have been obvious to begin with. Bureaucracies and safety nets don't mix. So long as airlines, public schools etc. know the government will bail them out, there's no reason to make things better. Whether vouchers are the solution, I can't say.
Maybe I'm premature, but I've got that gnawing depression building in the back of me that's telling me that if anything is going to change, it's going to be because we dragged the people in charge kicking and screaming from their beds in the middle of the night and dropped them in a lake somewhere to make a point. This is one of those controversial and largely accurate reports that gets everyone mad, but remains to be seen whether it's enough to get them to act.
Section 2: MORE LOVE OF GOD
Look at the average SAT scores, South Carolina is tied (emphasis) for last at 993. Texas comes in slightly above at 995. Florida comes in at 996.
"We are ranked #1 in the country for improvement on SATs."
Congratulations, you still flunked, just not as poorly. I can't imagine how bad your students were doing before. Oh, so now we can't judge states by SATs. If you could provide us with another standardized test commonly used through the US, we'd be more than happy to oblige your blatant stupidity. Telling us you're making great progress is every intelligent manager's klaxon that something is horribly wrong. If you can tell me in detail what progress has been made, I'll believe you.
And apparently half the kids in South Carolina high schools can't graduate in four years. That might be okay for college given the various circumstances and notable difficulty of various fields of interest, but high school? It shouldn't take more than four years.
As an aside, companies are infinitely innovative at screwing you over with technology. Your phone service may now be cheap, but they're still needlessly preventing you from making your own ringtones on the cheap wherever they can. They've learned to be sneaky, but service is still better.
Oh they just hit another nerve, and I'm about to pour out the nerd.
In World of WarCraft, raiding must be done to get the best gear. Originally, raids consisted of 40 people fighting through a dungeon to this end. When Blizzard expanded on World of Warcraft, the new dungeons were only for 25 people (with a few capped at 10).
It is very difficult to convey exactly how much whining there was about this, and how very little all that whining reflected the vast majority of people playing. For a period of about a month if not longer, the general forum on the official website was practically plastered with topics on the subject, with a very large number of people expressing very loud and obnoxious disagreement with the idea.
Why would anyone do this? Because people are lazy scum bags. The truth of 40 person raiding was that at least 15 people were potentially afk, useless, or intentionally worthless. As few as 15 were doing all the work, because they were dedicated and awesome. Thus, Blizzard made a change to remove the leeching scumbags. The 25 person raids require 95% of everyone involved to be involved, and not just pushing a couple buttons while watching TV. Attention is required, because otherwise you'll miss out on the fact that the boss just began to cast an easily avoidable spell which will wipe anyone who wasn't looking.
Now, who would guess that lazy scumbags with job assurance would complain about losing that absolute security?
The vouchers or a similar system, should it be properly implemented, are a direct threat to the job security of the School Boards, the teachers, and the PTAs. Suddenly tenure is thrown out the window, because the school's survival suddenly depends on your performance. Slack off and you walk, because no principle wants to lose their cushy job (the obvious result of a failed school). Of course people who want to be able to sit on a job for 25 years without actually doing it would object to this.
Maybe the initial revision of school vouchers wouldn't allow children to attend the good private schools, but if it meant they could choose which of the public schools they went to it would at least begin to make things better. There'd be overcrowding for a while, as well as some undercrowding, but eventually equilibrium will be reached. If we let states like Texas and South Carolina who are already screwed try it out first, we can probably see how to do it with less pandemonium.
And low and behold, we now address unions, and how the exceptional get the same treatment as the mediocre. WOW I JUST COVERED THIS!
"There aren't really bad teachers."
And there aren't really bad players in World of Warcraft or Halo. And the internet is full of literate people. The war in Iraq will be over before Christmas. I have a hot and beautiful woman waiting for me in my bed when I get home tonight.
Section 3: ALRIGHT, THAT'S ENOUGH GOD LOVE
I think what ultimately gets me about these teachers is not that they have a monopoly, or that they protect those among them who are incompetent. What gets to me is that they literally are capable of holding our children's education hostage for their own ends. I don't think anyone should have that power. And saying it's the people who don't have that power who "don't really care about kids" really convinces me.
This really highlights the incredible danger of what a person will do for something they don't even know about themselves. People who are normally caring and compassionate will kill kittens in the right circumstances if there is the subconscious perception the felines are a threat to their secure existence. They don't even realize they're arguing against something cute and fluffy for selfish reasons.
Well it's over, and my semi-stream of consciousness is probably frightening.
Fin.
20070830
Rant: Physics
Apparently, science is too hard for students in Britain. This exam is their answer.
For reference, page 34 of this pdf has some sample SAT physics questions. The exams in question are analogous to the SATs to an extent. They are taken around the same age, and serve many of the same purposes.
I am aware that not everyone has a knack for physics. I am aware that not everyone easily understands science. I am aware that some students are just really, really bad at studying. I am aware I don't know the UK's education systems well enough to be an authoritative commentator. However, I am not aware of any high school level physics exam that is a greater waste of time and resources that this.
Is science really that hard? Is there some magic to my brain that isn't present in others?
Call me elitist, but people who failed Physics should be able to score high marks on an exam like this. It's the biggest joke of an exam I've ever seen. If my child came home with this exam in high school I'd go ballistic. Fourth graders should know 90% of what's on that exam.
Maybe I'm delusional, maybe I've lost touch with how hard things really were back before college, but I'm beside myself in terror that this is what people are being tested against. I think I'd cry myself to sleep if my high schooler came home after being one of the apparent 55% who couldn't score an average level grade on this exam.
I'm going to have to guess that there are simply enough people like me in Britain that the statistic is skewed by people storming out of the examination room in disgust at the insult.
For reference, page 34 of this pdf has some sample SAT physics questions. The exams in question are analogous to the SATs to an extent. They are taken around the same age, and serve many of the same purposes.
I am aware that not everyone has a knack for physics. I am aware that not everyone easily understands science. I am aware that some students are just really, really bad at studying. I am aware I don't know the UK's education systems well enough to be an authoritative commentator. However, I am not aware of any high school level physics exam that is a greater waste of time and resources that this.
Is science really that hard? Is there some magic to my brain that isn't present in others?
Call me elitist, but people who failed Physics should be able to score high marks on an exam like this. It's the biggest joke of an exam I've ever seen. If my child came home with this exam in high school I'd go ballistic. Fourth graders should know 90% of what's on that exam.
Maybe I'm delusional, maybe I've lost touch with how hard things really were back before college, but I'm beside myself in terror that this is what people are being tested against. I think I'd cry myself to sleep if my high schooler came home after being one of the apparent 55% who couldn't score an average level grade on this exam.
I'm going to have to guess that there are simply enough people like me in Britain that the statistic is skewed by people storming out of the examination room in disgust at the insult.
20070820
Rant: Stuff
People have too much stuff. I submit the following as proof.
The white house on the right, the tiny one, is where my grandparents used to live. The house on the left is indicative of what has happened to all the other tiny houses in the area. The two door garage only looks like it's as big as my grandparents house, it's probably only almost as big.
I'll say it again, people have too much stuff. I will openly admit that for a number of families my grandparent's house would be a little uncomfortable. I'd recommend a house of my parent's size for 3+ children any day. For reference, here is said house.
Now, despite my mother's continued complaints about room for her books/art, her desire for a larger kitchen, and my dad's passive tolerance of his notably cramped office this house is quite nicely sized for a family such as ours. There were minor inconveniences to be sure, but there are minor inconveniences no matter what house you have.
There are situations where a large house is useful. Three generation families can definitely use large houses, as could a family with a sizable number of children. I'm not naive to the endless possibilities where such houses are not only justified but arguably necessary for comfortable living. However, even taking into consideration such situations there still should not be such demand for mansion-like houses.
From this, I can only conclude people have too much stuff. Right now I'm living in an apartment, and I have too much stuff. There is lots of stuff I have that I don't use, lots of stuff I used in the past but probably won't again, and there's room for more stuff that won't be necessary to my continued existence or happiness.
In short, consider your stuff. If you need a huge house for it all, you probably have too much of it.
The white house on the right, the tiny one, is where my grandparents used to live. The house on the left is indicative of what has happened to all the other tiny houses in the area. The two door garage only looks like it's as big as my grandparents house, it's probably only almost as big.
I'll say it again, people have too much stuff. I will openly admit that for a number of families my grandparent's house would be a little uncomfortable. I'd recommend a house of my parent's size for 3+ children any day. For reference, here is said house.
Now, despite my mother's continued complaints about room for her books/art, her desire for a larger kitchen, and my dad's passive tolerance of his notably cramped office this house is quite nicely sized for a family such as ours. There were minor inconveniences to be sure, but there are minor inconveniences no matter what house you have.
There are situations where a large house is useful. Three generation families can definitely use large houses, as could a family with a sizable number of children. I'm not naive to the endless possibilities where such houses are not only justified but arguably necessary for comfortable living. However, even taking into consideration such situations there still should not be such demand for mansion-like houses.
From this, I can only conclude people have too much stuff. Right now I'm living in an apartment, and I have too much stuff. There is lots of stuff I have that I don't use, lots of stuff I used in the past but probably won't again, and there's room for more stuff that won't be necessary to my continued existence or happiness.
In short, consider your stuff. If you need a huge house for it all, you probably have too much of it.
20070813
Rant: Gnus
There's a reason I don't watch TV for news.
The cafeteria at work as some televisions showing the news, and every time I sit down to eat I become less impressed with the broadcast. Today really highlighted the problem.
There have been a number of interesting food and health product recalls lately, most involving China. On the news today, the anchorwoman boldly announces there has been yet another. Piquing my interesting, I listen to hear what has happened now that I should be aware of.
But first we'll cover some cross-dressing shoplifter, Britney Spears, and a guy who takes photos of teenage girls in thongs and latex while their parents watch!
The fundamental question: How is any of that crap or even Karl Rove's resignation more important than my health and well-being? Seriously, how can we call any news agency "responsible" if they blatantly refuse to inform me of something supposedly dangerous to my continued existence.
Imagine if you went into your doctor's office and during the examination there a brief moment of awkward silence signaling the obvious discovery of a ailment. The doctor speaks, "Well, that's possibly going to kill you." Afraid and curious you ask, "What is?" The doctor shakes his head, "First, lets measure your weight and height, and then we can talk about your children's Flintstones vitamins."
In the end it was just more toothpaste; a complete waste of time. I certainly didn't stick around for their latest spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt for any reason other than that I was still eating.
The news is supposed to relay information to us about what we should be paying attention to. We are supposed to be made aware of things we otherwise wouldn't be made aware of. We are supposed to be shown issues that are hard to keep track of. Instead, we get the kind of setup that out paces even an ADHD's short attention span. I didn't even get to read where a church shooting was before they'd moved on to the congestion at the LA international airport.
It's a bad day for journalism when people who can't even be bothered to type out "you" are more informative.
The cafeteria at work as some televisions showing the news, and every time I sit down to eat I become less impressed with the broadcast. Today really highlighted the problem.
There have been a number of interesting food and health product recalls lately, most involving China. On the news today, the anchorwoman boldly announces there has been yet another. Piquing my interesting, I listen to hear what has happened now that I should be aware of.
But first we'll cover some cross-dressing shoplifter, Britney Spears, and a guy who takes photos of teenage girls in thongs and latex while their parents watch!
The fundamental question: How is any of that crap or even Karl Rove's resignation more important than my health and well-being? Seriously, how can we call any news agency "responsible" if they blatantly refuse to inform me of something supposedly dangerous to my continued existence.
Imagine if you went into your doctor's office and during the examination there a brief moment of awkward silence signaling the obvious discovery of a ailment. The doctor speaks, "Well, that's possibly going to kill you." Afraid and curious you ask, "What is?" The doctor shakes his head, "First, lets measure your weight and height, and then we can talk about your children's Flintstones vitamins."
In the end it was just more toothpaste; a complete waste of time. I certainly didn't stick around for their latest spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt for any reason other than that I was still eating.
The news is supposed to relay information to us about what we should be paying attention to. We are supposed to be made aware of things we otherwise wouldn't be made aware of. We are supposed to be shown issues that are hard to keep track of. Instead, we get the kind of setup that out paces even an ADHD's short attention span. I didn't even get to read where a church shooting was before they'd moved on to the congestion at the LA international airport.
It's a bad day for journalism when people who can't even be bothered to type out "you" are more informative.
20070803
Rant: EA Sports
A lot of gamers often criticize their more casual, sports-oriented fellows for continually buying the regurgitated sports games every year. I've stated it before, but the mind of the pure geek doesn't understand the worth of the updated rosters, seeing them only as arbitrary math values, and only sees the lack of worthwhile other features.
I am not one of them, as I can understand the value. However, I despise these games for a completely different reason. Specifically, I think EA Sports is exploiting these gamers.
No, it isn't charging $60 for an updated roster that bothers me, it's the completely unprofessional quality level these games exhibit. Maybe it's because there isn't anything better out there, but the gamers who buy these games year by year are buying crap.
For example, the box covers. Look up an EA sports title and tell me you don't immediately notice that the production value is less than that of some fake video game someone made for giggles on the internet. The Logo is professional enough, if placed somewhat low, but the rest is absolute blah. Too cheap to actual hire their own photographers, they take stock photos of popular athletes and paste them awkwardly onto the packaging. It only gets worse from here.
The in-game main menus are frighteningly reminiscent of menus I saw on early 3D shareware games in the 90s. Random and poorly chosen pictures dominate the screen, changing with the menu option while not providing a shred of useful information. The menu options themselves are strangely ordered, small, unemphasized and poorly laid out. It makes one wonder if these people were asleep during the part of their classes teaching the absolute basics of GUI design. Has no one heard of visual noise?
The games themselves lack any sense of polish or finish. I know that they aren't arcade games, they are simulations. They are, by definition, attempting to bring as accurate a sports experience as possible home. EA Sports games do not accomplish this. The controls are clumsy, which certainly doesn't help, but there's more than that. Maybe this is "Hollywood Fencing" syndrome where they slow everything down for the benefit of the audience, but any football team that takes 3-4 seconds after the hike to actually collide with the other defenders is in serious trouble.
There are exceptions, I've seen a number of decent games from EA sports. But I am continually astounded by the horrible games that manage to not only be released, but sell well.
Gaming sports fans, do yourselvesa favor and ask for more. You deserve it, you're paying for it, and you're not getting it.
I am not one of them, as I can understand the value. However, I despise these games for a completely different reason. Specifically, I think EA Sports is exploiting these gamers.
No, it isn't charging $60 for an updated roster that bothers me, it's the completely unprofessional quality level these games exhibit. Maybe it's because there isn't anything better out there, but the gamers who buy these games year by year are buying crap.
For example, the box covers. Look up an EA sports title and tell me you don't immediately notice that the production value is less than that of some fake video game someone made for giggles on the internet. The Logo is professional enough, if placed somewhat low, but the rest is absolute blah. Too cheap to actual hire their own photographers, they take stock photos of popular athletes and paste them awkwardly onto the packaging. It only gets worse from here.
The in-game main menus are frighteningly reminiscent of menus I saw on early 3D shareware games in the 90s. Random and poorly chosen pictures dominate the screen, changing with the menu option while not providing a shred of useful information. The menu options themselves are strangely ordered, small, unemphasized and poorly laid out. It makes one wonder if these people were asleep during the part of their classes teaching the absolute basics of GUI design. Has no one heard of visual noise?
The games themselves lack any sense of polish or finish. I know that they aren't arcade games, they are simulations. They are, by definition, attempting to bring as accurate a sports experience as possible home. EA Sports games do not accomplish this. The controls are clumsy, which certainly doesn't help, but there's more than that. Maybe this is "Hollywood Fencing" syndrome where they slow everything down for the benefit of the audience, but any football team that takes 3-4 seconds after the hike to actually collide with the other defenders is in serious trouble.
There are exceptions, I've seen a number of decent games from EA sports. But I am continually astounded by the horrible games that manage to not only be released, but sell well.
Gaming sports fans, do yourselvesa favor and ask for more. You deserve it, you're paying for it, and you're not getting it.
20070614
Rant: "pls"
I like grammar. My mother might contest that statement citing certain activities I abhored during homeschooling, but nevertheless I stand by it. I am not entirely comfortable with semi-colons and I certainly don't have absolutely perfect typing. I do, however, wish to be able to lay down punctuation with the best of them.
But this is the internet, and in the name of the expediency of such things as "instant messenging" not everything will receive due attention. That is alright, I have no qualm with abbreviating concepts and actions into one word that would otherwise have been a long sentence.
Such acronyms as "lol", "rofl", and "brb" are appropriate and understandable; each is born of an express need for haste. In any situation that is funny, it is both polite and friendly to give a near immediate indication that said joke/story/whatever was humorous. When one intends on leaving for a brief time, typing out the full "Be right back" serves only to delay one's return. That is why I condone and use these shortcuts.
To expand on that, multiple word acronyms that lack any inherent attributed alacrity are annoying. These are acronyms such as "u2", "oic" and "ru". That's a separate subject from what I'm attempting to cover today.
I am constantly finding myself amazed at the laziness of the internet. I can not, will not, ever endorse shortcutting a single word unless it conforms to the following:
1. It is as long as supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
2. It is a confirmational/feedback word such as "Okay" that indicates one's presence or attention.
Offenders:
"u" - Seriously, the 'y' and the 'o' keys are right there. If you can be bothered to spell words like "halo", "r0x0rz" or "make up", you can be bothered to hit the other two keys that are no more than two spaces away from one another.
"ur" - See "u".
"y" - The 'w' and 'h' keys are far more reachable than the 'y', not to mention the 'h' is immediately below it.
"o" - The 'h' is immediately to the left of one of the more dexterous of fingers. Can't you take the minimal effort to add that one additional character?
"r" - The 'a' and 'e' characters are right there. If you reach for the 'r' with your pointer finger, your middle finger should come to rest right on the 'e' while your pinky remains on the 'a'. Your hand is naturally putting itself in a position to type this easily, why is it so hard just to press down with two fingers that are there anyway?
"pls/plz" - I really, really dislike this one. If you seriously can't be bothered to write out the entirity of the word "please", what reason do I have to help you? This is especially annoying when the favor being asked is long, tiresome and thankless. I can only think of one time I ever helped someone who said "plz" and that was because I could tell they were only 4 years old.
"thx" - No, it was nothing. Don't mention it, I mean it. I don't want to hear your half-hearted "thx" for my deeds. If you can't type out a full "thanks", you could at least use the more respectable "ty". "ty" is two words abbreviated, it makes sense.
"wat?" - 'h' is currently setting up a noose over being excluded like this. It's one of the 10 easiest keys to hit on the keyboard.
"b4" - Numbers do not belong in words. It's funny in 1337, but that's because the numbers are replacing the symbols for specific letters and not entire sections of the word itself. "Before" is a long word, but by the time I figure out you aren't playing IRC battleship you could have typed it three times.
"rite" - "rite" is a word. Its definition is very different from "right". Please do no use the one as an abbreviation of the other.
"ez" - I already know you can be bothered to type 'y'. The 'a' and 's' keys are already under your fingers, and the 'e' is sqrt(2) away from 's'. It's easy to type this word, probably moreso than reaching for the oft-neglected 'z' key.
"nvm" - Just, nevermind. I'm not going to bother saying anything more about this pure obfuscation.
"ppl" - There are only two additional keys to press to make this a full word, 'e' and 'o'. One is right near the otherwise idle left hand. The other is right next to the 'p' key you're already hitting twice. Are we really this lazy?
Maybe I'm an elitist, maybe I'm just a fast typer, maybe I really shouldn't take grammar on the internet so seriously. Whatever the case, needlessly shortening words that need not be shortened is going to knock you down a few notches in my book unless done in parody.
ggplzkthxbai
But this is the internet, and in the name of the expediency of such things as "instant messenging" not everything will receive due attention. That is alright, I have no qualm with abbreviating concepts and actions into one word that would otherwise have been a long sentence.
Such acronyms as "lol", "rofl", and "brb" are appropriate and understandable; each is born of an express need for haste. In any situation that is funny, it is both polite and friendly to give a near immediate indication that said joke/story/whatever was humorous. When one intends on leaving for a brief time, typing out the full "Be right back" serves only to delay one's return. That is why I condone and use these shortcuts.
To expand on that, multiple word acronyms that lack any inherent attributed alacrity are annoying. These are acronyms such as "u2", "oic" and "ru". That's a separate subject from what I'm attempting to cover today.
I am constantly finding myself amazed at the laziness of the internet. I can not, will not, ever endorse shortcutting a single word unless it conforms to the following:
1. It is as long as supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
2. It is a confirmational/feedback word such as "Okay" that indicates one's presence or attention.
Offenders:
"u" - Seriously, the 'y' and the 'o' keys are right there. If you can be bothered to spell words like "halo", "r0x0rz" or "make up", you can be bothered to hit the other two keys that are no more than two spaces away from one another.
"ur" - See "u".
"y" - The 'w' and 'h' keys are far more reachable than the 'y', not to mention the 'h' is immediately below it.
"o" - The 'h' is immediately to the left of one of the more dexterous of fingers. Can't you take the minimal effort to add that one additional character?
"r" - The 'a' and 'e' characters are right there. If you reach for the 'r' with your pointer finger, your middle finger should come to rest right on the 'e' while your pinky remains on the 'a'. Your hand is naturally putting itself in a position to type this easily, why is it so hard just to press down with two fingers that are there anyway?
"pls/plz" - I really, really dislike this one. If you seriously can't be bothered to write out the entirity of the word "please", what reason do I have to help you? This is especially annoying when the favor being asked is long, tiresome and thankless. I can only think of one time I ever helped someone who said "plz" and that was because I could tell they were only 4 years old.
"thx" - No, it was nothing. Don't mention it, I mean it. I don't want to hear your half-hearted "thx" for my deeds. If you can't type out a full "thanks", you could at least use the more respectable "ty". "ty" is two words abbreviated, it makes sense.
"wat?" - 'h' is currently setting up a noose over being excluded like this. It's one of the 10 easiest keys to hit on the keyboard.
"b4" - Numbers do not belong in words. It's funny in 1337, but that's because the numbers are replacing the symbols for specific letters and not entire sections of the word itself. "Before" is a long word, but by the time I figure out you aren't playing IRC battleship you could have typed it three times.
"rite" - "rite" is a word. Its definition is very different from "right". Please do no use the one as an abbreviation of the other.
"ez" - I already know you can be bothered to type 'y'. The 'a' and 's' keys are already under your fingers, and the 'e' is sqrt(2) away from 's'. It's easy to type this word, probably moreso than reaching for the oft-neglected 'z' key.
"nvm" - Just, nevermind. I'm not going to bother saying anything more about this pure obfuscation.
"ppl" - There are only two additional keys to press to make this a full word, 'e' and 'o'. One is right near the otherwise idle left hand. The other is right next to the 'p' key you're already hitting twice. Are we really this lazy?
Maybe I'm an elitist, maybe I'm just a fast typer, maybe I really shouldn't take grammar on the internet so seriously. Whatever the case, needlessly shortening words that need not be shortened is going to knock you down a few notches in my book unless done in parody.
ggplzkthxbai
20070605
Rant: Yarr
So the IFPI posted their 10 Inconvenient Truths about file sharing.
I'm not one to generally stand in defense of the music and video swapping that goes on, it is on the dark-side of the greyscale concerning legality, but the arguments made were so ridiculously stupid I couldn't believe it. What happened to all of the valid criticisms?
Here are their 10 "Inconvenient Truths".
Pretty conclusive, right? Right guys? They tried so hard, they really did. Don't they at least get a "Good Effort" ribbon?
1. CNN has ads. Slashdot has ads. In fact, the website the article was found had ads. It's standard practice on the web these days. However much I dislike the ads, they don't cost me money and are critical to allowing such websites to function without charging anyone for the "free music".
2. AllOfMp3.com was legal until the laws changed. Additionally, the closing of said site does little to dissuade people who have never heard of it, use P2P file sharing services, or don't know where "Russia" is on a map. This only makes sense insofar as destroying a distributor "inconveniences" the people who used to go there.
3. Organized Crime gangs and Terrorists also drive cars, breathe air, and work day-jobs. Stop affirming the consequent and understand that doing evil things makes a person evil but not everything an evil person does is bad.
4. We also don't care if our Crest toothpaste is made in Taiwan or Quebec. Crest is the brand that everyone recognizes, parent companies and distributors are not noticed. You'd think the marketers would know something about that.
5. This is a point, and I'll accept that it is true. However, there are several availible counterpoints: You weren't supporting underground artists in the first place, file sharing has been a major boon for underground artists, and artists make most of their money from concerts anyways.
6. Could it possibly be that the responsible ISPs are advertising such reputable websites and services such as eMusic and iTunes? Just because it's music on the internet doesn't mean it's pirated.
7. Firstly, since when is the economy the yardstick for everything? Civil Rights and Women's Liberation didn't create jobs, didn't generate tax revenue, and the protests often directly impeded the economy. Should these movements have dispered for the sake of the almighty dollar? Anti-copyright may not be as morally important as Civil Rights or Women's Lib, but attacking it for not helping the economy is silly.
Secondly, I understand that a weakened recording industry might mean a decrease in the jobs and tax revenue from said industry. This will affect many people directly and indirectly. However, those who believe said industry is cheating them and the artists they represent will not cry upon hearing this.
8. I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that it's the homeless guy on the street or the mother just making it through each day pirating the music. Most people I know point to high schoolers and college students who simply don't have the money to spend on oodles of CDs in lieu of important items like books, food, and school supplies. So as it isn't poverty that is to blame, we must ask what the cause is.
Generally, as this is economics, we must consider supply and demand. The RIAA and similar organizations have basically positted that demand hasn't changed, but has found a seperate and illegal channel for its supply. The anti-copyright movement posits that the demand has shrunk in lieu of the crap the industry is producing and that, if anything, file sharing has been slowing that by introducing people to bands they never would have listened to before. They also posit that, if anything, copyright and DRM only hinder the process by which file sharing does this.
Whoever is right, stating that poverty isn't the cause is like stating "The answer is not 3" when the question was "Should I use 'their' or 'there' in this sentence?".
9. "Wrong" and "Illegal" are not the same thing. They may often go hand in hand, but not always. As it stands, it is illegal, and the anti-copyright movement says it shouldn't be. As "Wrong" is obviously being used in the "Illegal" sense, you're not telling people anything they already don't know.
10. Point 1: There are more methods of file sharing than P2P networks (See The Pirate Bay, torrents, irc and other methods many of which you've already mentioned).
Point 2: While "unknown" bands being shared more frequently than known ones would be solid proof of the "hotbed"s of P2P, it would not exclude "popular" bands from being shared with appreciable frequency. The question isn't whether "popular" bands are still shared more than "unknown" bands, but rather is the ratio of "popular" to "unknown" far greater in such a situation than what appears in store sales?
All in all, I don't think any of the best arguments against file sharing were brought up. The anti-copyright movement has to convince the RIAA that file sharing isn't evil; this is something that current trends within the movement hinder more than help. File sharing is illegal, and a lot of the anti-copyright movement sits around laughing at the RIAA more than they do anything to rectify the illegality of their situation. File sharing does hurt sales when people download music they would otherwise have bought and never pay. File sharing often spreads viruses and misattributes music to the wrong author.
There's a lot more that's wrong with file sharing, but ultimately very little of it was brought up in the "10 Inconvenient Truths". For stealing the name of a documentary reknowned for making it crystal clear exactly how we're screwing up our planet, this was a very poor job of damning file sharing.
I'm not one to generally stand in defense of the music and video swapping that goes on, it is on the dark-side of the greyscale concerning legality, but the arguments made were so ridiculously stupid I couldn't believe it. What happened to all of the valid criticisms?
Here are their 10 "Inconvenient Truths".
1. Pirate Bay, one of the flagships of the anti-copyright movement, makes thousands of euros from advertising on its site, while maintaining its anti-establishment "free music" rhetoric.
2. AllOfMP3.com, the well-known Russian web site, has not been licensed by a single IFPI member, has been disowned by right holder groups worldwide and is facing criminal proceedings in Russia.
3. Organized criminal gangs and even terrorist groups use the sale of counterfeit CDs to raise revenue and launder money.
4. Illegal file-sharers don’t care whether the copyright-infringing work they distribute is from a major or independent label.
5. Reduced revenues for record companies mean less money available to take a risk on "underground" artists and more inclination to invest in "bankers" like American Idol stars.
6. ISPs often advertise music as a benefit of signing up to their service, but facilitate the illegal swapping on copyright infringing music on a grand scale.
7. The anti-copyright movement does not create jobs, exports, tax revenues and economic growth–it largely consists of people pontificating on a commercial world about which they know little.
8. Piracy is not caused by poverty. Professor Zhang of Nanjing University found the Chinese citizens who bought pirate products were mainly middle- or higher-income earners.
9. Most people know it is wrong to file-share copyright infringing material but won't stop till the law makes them, according to a recent study by the Australian anti-piracy group MIPI.
10. P2P networks are not hotbeds for discovering new music. It is popular music that is illegally file-shared most frequently.
Pretty conclusive, right? Right guys? They tried so hard, they really did. Don't they at least get a "Good Effort" ribbon?
1. CNN has ads. Slashdot has ads. In fact, the website the article was found had ads. It's standard practice on the web these days. However much I dislike the ads, they don't cost me money and are critical to allowing such websites to function without charging anyone for the "free music".
2. AllOfMp3.com was legal until the laws changed. Additionally, the closing of said site does little to dissuade people who have never heard of it, use P2P file sharing services, or don't know where "Russia" is on a map. This only makes sense insofar as destroying a distributor "inconveniences" the people who used to go there.
3. Organized Crime gangs and Terrorists also drive cars, breathe air, and work day-jobs. Stop affirming the consequent and understand that doing evil things makes a person evil but not everything an evil person does is bad.
4. We also don't care if our Crest toothpaste is made in Taiwan or Quebec. Crest is the brand that everyone recognizes, parent companies and distributors are not noticed. You'd think the marketers would know something about that.
5. This is a point, and I'll accept that it is true. However, there are several availible counterpoints: You weren't supporting underground artists in the first place, file sharing has been a major boon for underground artists, and artists make most of their money from concerts anyways.
6. Could it possibly be that the responsible ISPs are advertising such reputable websites and services such as eMusic and iTunes? Just because it's music on the internet doesn't mean it's pirated.
7. Firstly, since when is the economy the yardstick for everything? Civil Rights and Women's Liberation didn't create jobs, didn't generate tax revenue, and the protests often directly impeded the economy. Should these movements have dispered for the sake of the almighty dollar? Anti-copyright may not be as morally important as Civil Rights or Women's Lib, but attacking it for not helping the economy is silly.
Secondly, I understand that a weakened recording industry might mean a decrease in the jobs and tax revenue from said industry. This will affect many people directly and indirectly. However, those who believe said industry is cheating them and the artists they represent will not cry upon hearing this.
8. I don't think I've ever heard someone argue that it's the homeless guy on the street or the mother just making it through each day pirating the music. Most people I know point to high schoolers and college students who simply don't have the money to spend on oodles of CDs in lieu of important items like books, food, and school supplies. So as it isn't poverty that is to blame, we must ask what the cause is.
Generally, as this is economics, we must consider supply and demand. The RIAA and similar organizations have basically positted that demand hasn't changed, but has found a seperate and illegal channel for its supply. The anti-copyright movement posits that the demand has shrunk in lieu of the crap the industry is producing and that, if anything, file sharing has been slowing that by introducing people to bands they never would have listened to before. They also posit that, if anything, copyright and DRM only hinder the process by which file sharing does this.
Whoever is right, stating that poverty isn't the cause is like stating "The answer is not 3" when the question was "Should I use 'their' or 'there' in this sentence?".
9. "Wrong" and "Illegal" are not the same thing. They may often go hand in hand, but not always. As it stands, it is illegal, and the anti-copyright movement says it shouldn't be. As "Wrong" is obviously being used in the "Illegal" sense, you're not telling people anything they already don't know.
10. Point 1: There are more methods of file sharing than P2P networks (See The Pirate Bay, torrents, irc and other methods many of which you've already mentioned).
Point 2: While "unknown" bands being shared more frequently than known ones would be solid proof of the "hotbed"s of P2P, it would not exclude "popular" bands from being shared with appreciable frequency. The question isn't whether "popular" bands are still shared more than "unknown" bands, but rather is the ratio of "popular" to "unknown" far greater in such a situation than what appears in store sales?
All in all, I don't think any of the best arguments against file sharing were brought up. The anti-copyright movement has to convince the RIAA that file sharing isn't evil; this is something that current trends within the movement hinder more than help. File sharing is illegal, and a lot of the anti-copyright movement sits around laughing at the RIAA more than they do anything to rectify the illegality of their situation. File sharing does hurt sales when people download music they would otherwise have bought and never pay. File sharing often spreads viruses and misattributes music to the wrong author.
There's a lot more that's wrong with file sharing, but ultimately very little of it was brought up in the "10 Inconvenient Truths". For stealing the name of a documentary reknowned for making it crystal clear exactly how we're screwing up our planet, this was a very poor job of damning file sharing.
20070522
Rant: Diversity
No, this isn't about political correctness or racism. It does, however, run along similar veins. No, this doesn't have anything to do with StarCraft II. It does, however, have its roots in World of WarCraft.
I very often get into debates with other players concerning the feasibility of various actions or specializations in the competitive parts of the game. The other players often insist on a specific set of conditions and actions no matter what the situation might be. After bumping heads numerous times, I finally had an epiphany of sorts as to the nature of the issue.
It's a matter of simplicity.
How it manifests is more complicated, but it boils down to the inherent need to simplify matters. I will probably not be able to appreciate or understand art on the same level as my sister, and as such must suffice with a simplified and more base appreciation of a painter's work. My mother will never be as capable as my father in the fields of mathematics, and as such will simplify her understanding of extremely advanced concepts. It's a simply human method of coping with the fact that there is more information and activity in the world than we can ever learn and know.
Often, this part of human nature is abused. A fundamental assumption of our simplifications is forgotten. Specifically, that the simplifications are just simplifications and must be recomplicated when appropriate. It's implicit in the act of simplifying or generalizing that upon leaving the realms of the general for the specific we mustn't rely on the simple or general. Failing to do so brings about racism and other nasty things.
Going back to World of WarCraft, my most recent argument touched on both exploring dungeons and fighting other players. I had written a javascript calculator to mathematically compare the ability of various specializations to defeat monsters. The results were interesting, showing a specialization I had hoped would prove viable to be rather weak but simultaneously showing one I presumed weak to be equally strong as the "cookie cutter" specialization many players use for the specific task of killing monsters. Relaying these results to other players, I theorized that because of various differences (that I will not go into the detail of) the new specialization I had discovered would also be the optimal one for players wishing to both kill monsters and fight players without constantly having to change specializations (an expensive proposition within the game).
Now that I've bored you with that, here's what happened next.
One of the players I was discussing this with scoffed at the idea that this build had any viability in fighting other players whatsoever. He insisted on one specific ability as paramount and absolutely necessary, claiming it was impossible for anyone to fight other players without it. After a few amusing jests on my part ("You can fight other players without even swinging a sword! You'll lose... but it's still a fight!") I positted the following.
If all other players have specialized in a specific way, why not specialize in such a way as to be spefically devastating to people with the "cookie cutter" specialization? They won't know how to fight you (as you're the only person who plays this way and as such very few players will have encountered your style) and you'll know how to fight them (as every other player fights the same way). My argument, to be brief, fell on deaf ears. The player continually insisted that there was only one way to do things, and that doing things any other way was pointless.
Thinking on this birthed the epiphany. When attempting to understand a complicated situation involving 9 different "classes" of players each of which has varying degrees of ability in specific roles such as "damage", "healing", "control", "surivival" and "support" for which players can specialize to maximize specific subsets of each, one immediately wants to simplify matters as much as possible. Attempting to account for each individual player's inherent abilities alongside how they've specialized and fit each player into your battle squad like puzzle pieces is a daunting task. For the average person, this is simply too much to ask. They're forced to simplify.
To simplify, they typecast the 9 "classes" into specific roles to which they have the greatest ability. It's a lot easier to remove three or four other assets from a class and boil them down into one or two than to attempt to account for the five I mentioned. It's simple, X number of people are "damage dealers", Y are "healers", Z are "controllers" etc. One person can now easily account for exactly what each person is supposed to be doing and easily judge them accordingly.
While a useful generalization, it is too often forgotten that one should "recomplicate" matters during an in-depth discussion. This is compounded by the tendancy of devoted players to assume that, due to the time they've invested in the game, they are knowledgable about it. To an extent this is true, but to another extent it isn't. I could potentially spend the rest of my life visiting art galleries and examining paintings, but there is a limit on how much one can passively increase their depth of knowledge. Without active attempts to plum the mysteries of the works, I'll end my life barely more knowledgable about art than when I began my pilgrimage.
The result of all this is a lot of people bringing simplified visions of matters into in depth discussions. In normal conversations, say my sister and a friend discussing some work of Monet, neophytes such as myself have the common decency to avoid barging in with opinionated and uninformed sentiments. This is possible because we immediately recognize our ignorance. When everyone makes a fundamental assumption that they are an expert (or worse, a greater expert than others) very little understanding results from the discussion.
The simplification marginalizes any number of important possibilities. For example, if I ask, "Is it ever wise to enter a dark alleyway?" the obvious answer is "No! That's dangerous!" However, it ignores any number of possible situations. What if I'm walking a dog and it runs down the alley? What if there's a runaway car plowing down the sidewalk? What if I see someone in need of assistance? These situations may or may not be common, but in the name of simplification they are forgotten.
Again returning to competitive video gaming, the simplifications allow average people to work together well. However, they will never be optimal for "pro" players. The near infinite diveristy of situations calls for a nearly infinite adaptability, something the simplifications don't provide. There are numerous possible situations which can call upon someone in one role to fill another. Though not their express mission, they may be the only one able to address a sudden issue or development. Requiring them to ignore this if it is of greater detriment for them to do is ridiculous. The most excellent of "teams" will be those that act as a web, not only filling their "best" role but also the others. Such a force would easily steamroll any "simplified" opponent.
Sadly, people such as I who recognize this often find ourselves filling in too many roles simultaneously upon joining battle with a randomized group of people. Very few people are able to see beyond a single role, and so very often many important things go undone.
Perhaps eventually I'll meet a group of people who all see what I see.
I very often get into debates with other players concerning the feasibility of various actions or specializations in the competitive parts of the game. The other players often insist on a specific set of conditions and actions no matter what the situation might be. After bumping heads numerous times, I finally had an epiphany of sorts as to the nature of the issue.
It's a matter of simplicity.
How it manifests is more complicated, but it boils down to the inherent need to simplify matters. I will probably not be able to appreciate or understand art on the same level as my sister, and as such must suffice with a simplified and more base appreciation of a painter's work. My mother will never be as capable as my father in the fields of mathematics, and as such will simplify her understanding of extremely advanced concepts. It's a simply human method of coping with the fact that there is more information and activity in the world than we can ever learn and know.
Often, this part of human nature is abused. A fundamental assumption of our simplifications is forgotten. Specifically, that the simplifications are just simplifications and must be recomplicated when appropriate. It's implicit in the act of simplifying or generalizing that upon leaving the realms of the general for the specific we mustn't rely on the simple or general. Failing to do so brings about racism and other nasty things.
Going back to World of WarCraft, my most recent argument touched on both exploring dungeons and fighting other players. I had written a javascript calculator to mathematically compare the ability of various specializations to defeat monsters. The results were interesting, showing a specialization I had hoped would prove viable to be rather weak but simultaneously showing one I presumed weak to be equally strong as the "cookie cutter" specialization many players use for the specific task of killing monsters. Relaying these results to other players, I theorized that because of various differences (that I will not go into the detail of) the new specialization I had discovered would also be the optimal one for players wishing to both kill monsters and fight players without constantly having to change specializations (an expensive proposition within the game).
Now that I've bored you with that, here's what happened next.
One of the players I was discussing this with scoffed at the idea that this build had any viability in fighting other players whatsoever. He insisted on one specific ability as paramount and absolutely necessary, claiming it was impossible for anyone to fight other players without it. After a few amusing jests on my part ("You can fight other players without even swinging a sword! You'll lose... but it's still a fight!") I positted the following.
If all other players have specialized in a specific way, why not specialize in such a way as to be spefically devastating to people with the "cookie cutter" specialization? They won't know how to fight you (as you're the only person who plays this way and as such very few players will have encountered your style) and you'll know how to fight them (as every other player fights the same way). My argument, to be brief, fell on deaf ears. The player continually insisted that there was only one way to do things, and that doing things any other way was pointless.
Thinking on this birthed the epiphany. When attempting to understand a complicated situation involving 9 different "classes" of players each of which has varying degrees of ability in specific roles such as "damage", "healing", "control", "surivival" and "support" for which players can specialize to maximize specific subsets of each, one immediately wants to simplify matters as much as possible. Attempting to account for each individual player's inherent abilities alongside how they've specialized and fit each player into your battle squad like puzzle pieces is a daunting task. For the average person, this is simply too much to ask. They're forced to simplify.
To simplify, they typecast the 9 "classes" into specific roles to which they have the greatest ability. It's a lot easier to remove three or four other assets from a class and boil them down into one or two than to attempt to account for the five I mentioned. It's simple, X number of people are "damage dealers", Y are "healers", Z are "controllers" etc. One person can now easily account for exactly what each person is supposed to be doing and easily judge them accordingly.
While a useful generalization, it is too often forgotten that one should "recomplicate" matters during an in-depth discussion. This is compounded by the tendancy of devoted players to assume that, due to the time they've invested in the game, they are knowledgable about it. To an extent this is true, but to another extent it isn't. I could potentially spend the rest of my life visiting art galleries and examining paintings, but there is a limit on how much one can passively increase their depth of knowledge. Without active attempts to plum the mysteries of the works, I'll end my life barely more knowledgable about art than when I began my pilgrimage.
The result of all this is a lot of people bringing simplified visions of matters into in depth discussions. In normal conversations, say my sister and a friend discussing some work of Monet, neophytes such as myself have the common decency to avoid barging in with opinionated and uninformed sentiments. This is possible because we immediately recognize our ignorance. When everyone makes a fundamental assumption that they are an expert (or worse, a greater expert than others) very little understanding results from the discussion.
The simplification marginalizes any number of important possibilities. For example, if I ask, "Is it ever wise to enter a dark alleyway?" the obvious answer is "No! That's dangerous!" However, it ignores any number of possible situations. What if I'm walking a dog and it runs down the alley? What if there's a runaway car plowing down the sidewalk? What if I see someone in need of assistance? These situations may or may not be common, but in the name of simplification they are forgotten.
Again returning to competitive video gaming, the simplifications allow average people to work together well. However, they will never be optimal for "pro" players. The near infinite diveristy of situations calls for a nearly infinite adaptability, something the simplifications don't provide. There are numerous possible situations which can call upon someone in one role to fill another. Though not their express mission, they may be the only one able to address a sudden issue or development. Requiring them to ignore this if it is of greater detriment for them to do is ridiculous. The most excellent of "teams" will be those that act as a web, not only filling their "best" role but also the others. Such a force would easily steamroll any "simplified" opponent.
Sadly, people such as I who recognize this often find ourselves filling in too many roles simultaneously upon joining battle with a randomized group of people. Very few people are able to see beyond a single role, and so very often many important things go undone.
Perhaps eventually I'll meet a group of people who all see what I see.
20070307
Rant: Lumping
Rar rant time.
Lumping is a term in Physics used to decribe when one combines two objects which, for the purpose of the problem or experiment, can be considered one object. This is most commonly seen in situations involving friction, acceleration, and blocks sliding on slopes. The first Physics class I took in high school the teacher taught us how to properly employ lumping. It was a useful tool with two entirely critical points to remember.
1) Although lumped, the two objects are merely represented by one object.
2) Unlumping must take place when there comes a point where the two objects can no longer be treated as one.
These two fundamental points did not sink into much of the class properly, and some very, very bad Physics resulted. The teacher rued the day he attempted to teach lumping and struck it from our syllabus. He outright forbade its use from then on, swearing heavy penalties for its use. No matter how many times he's reiterated these points, too many students continually forgot them.
There is a very good reason I went into that nerdy Physics stuff, and that is because it is an excellent analogy for another form of lumping.
I really enjoy debate. Thinking about other people's positions, wrestling with what answers will or will not make sense, asking the tough questions, these and more are aspects of a good debate I enjoy. There are a vast number of fallacies, idiocies and downright crazy things people do in debates that turn them sour. Lumping is one of these.
Lumping is closely related to the flaw of generalizations. Generalizations always have exceptions, otherwise they would be rules. As a brief aside, a commonly cited paradox is the "all generalizations are false" generalization. I have come to the conclusion that this is not a generalization itself, but is in fact a rule. Rules do not have exceptions, otherwise it defeats the purpose of a rule (see Sherlock Holmes).
To return to the topic at hand, lumping is when a person putting forth and argument or point "lumps" a group of people together. This happens all the time, it would be hard to talk about "the American people" or "martial artists" without lumping. However, much like its Physics counterpart it requires two points to be kept constantly in memory.
1) While lumped, the numerous people are merely represented by the category or term.
2) Unlumping must take place when there comes a point where the numerous people can no longer be treated as one.
I recently participated in a debate over the blindness of faith. For reference, here is my response to the parent comment which began this saga. Someone had made the statement that "faith requires lack of reasoning". I responded with a correctionary statement that "blind faith requires a lack of reasoning". They responded in turn to say that "All faith is blind". I probably should have seen the warning signs immediately, but I didn't.
I proceeded to lay out arguments that there is a fundamental difference between faith that is oblivious, willfully or otherwise, of any contradictions, and faith that actively acknowledges these and wrestles with them. I've been working on my terseness, so I kept it simple and short (although I worked in a somewhat subtle reference to The Raven). I did not meet the expected outcome. The partner in this debate saw no difference between the two.
I then compared the latter type of faith to the scientific method, noting the parallels in hypothesis, in testing, and in observation. I specifically brought up how theories and hypothesis are labeled such because they aren't conclusively proven, meaning that on some level a step or leap of faith must be taken to believe their veracity. I probably shouldn't have wasted any more of his or my time after this point, as it should have been painfully obvious what was going on. He proceded to dispute the idea that there were any parallels between science and religion at all, declaring science's ability to "turn on a dime" and trumpeting the dogmatic practices of religion.
The specific instance that spawned my concious realization of his fallacy came in his final response, final because I stopped responding. Aside from demonstrating he wasn't informed on Cold Fusion, he also brought up how when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated, "Religion" denied the acquired date stating "carbon dating is a sham". This was when I had my epiphany as to what was going on, one other than him being a zealous, dogmatic, and simultaneously ignorant scientismist. That's judgemental of me, and possibly unfair. I probably looked quite the zealous defender of "Religion" myself, except I wasn't the one who brought up God, religion, or the Shroud of Turin. I was arguing in entirely scientific terms until non-scientific ones were brought in, with the possible exclusion of "faith" itself.
In any case, my opposite in this quarrel demonstrated a remarkable talent for improper lumping.
He used the extremely broad term "Religion" when referring to the reaction to the Shroud of Turin's carbon dating. To my knowledge, the only affected religion was Christianity. I'm not aware of any Daoists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindi, Wiccans, or Muslims who raised an outcry about this. I'm pretty sure Scientologists were equally indifferent.
That was only the outer-most level of it, while there were certainly Christians raising a cry over the result it certainly wasn't all Christians. I'm fairly confident that large portions of the Church did not participate in the outcry, did not care, or even accepted that the Shroud of Turin might not really be what it was cracked up to be. I'd even wager that there wasn't a single major denomination which was completely unified in its response.
What we have here is a failure to unlump. The actions of a small fraction of "Religion" or "Christianity" are attributed to the whole when the representation no long holds. This would have gotten a big ZERO on those Physics tests.
Perhaps I have misjudged the person, but their tone and message seemed rather clear to me. They seemed condescending, selective in their evidence and facts, and lumped people and events into "Science" and "Religion" in ways that were fair to neither. I will not claim that my points or ideas were perfect. However, I do feel that my "grey" arguments collided headlong into "black and white" thinking.
I suppose I frequently post these altercations here for a second opinion. I want to know if I'm being mean-spirited, dogmatic, "black and white" or otherwise judging unfairly. When I'm arguing over the internet, this is the only accountability I have.
Lumping is a term in Physics used to decribe when one combines two objects which, for the purpose of the problem or experiment, can be considered one object. This is most commonly seen in situations involving friction, acceleration, and blocks sliding on slopes. The first Physics class I took in high school the teacher taught us how to properly employ lumping. It was a useful tool with two entirely critical points to remember.
1) Although lumped, the two objects are merely represented by one object.
2) Unlumping must take place when there comes a point where the two objects can no longer be treated as one.
These two fundamental points did not sink into much of the class properly, and some very, very bad Physics resulted. The teacher rued the day he attempted to teach lumping and struck it from our syllabus. He outright forbade its use from then on, swearing heavy penalties for its use. No matter how many times he's reiterated these points, too many students continually forgot them.
There is a very good reason I went into that nerdy Physics stuff, and that is because it is an excellent analogy for another form of lumping.
I really enjoy debate. Thinking about other people's positions, wrestling with what answers will or will not make sense, asking the tough questions, these and more are aspects of a good debate I enjoy. There are a vast number of fallacies, idiocies and downright crazy things people do in debates that turn them sour. Lumping is one of these.
Lumping is closely related to the flaw of generalizations. Generalizations always have exceptions, otherwise they would be rules. As a brief aside, a commonly cited paradox is the "all generalizations are false" generalization. I have come to the conclusion that this is not a generalization itself, but is in fact a rule. Rules do not have exceptions, otherwise it defeats the purpose of a rule (see Sherlock Holmes).
To return to the topic at hand, lumping is when a person putting forth and argument or point "lumps" a group of people together. This happens all the time, it would be hard to talk about "the American people" or "martial artists" without lumping. However, much like its Physics counterpart it requires two points to be kept constantly in memory.
1) While lumped, the numerous people are merely represented by the category or term.
2) Unlumping must take place when there comes a point where the numerous people can no longer be treated as one.
I recently participated in a debate over the blindness of faith. For reference, here is my response to the parent comment which began this saga. Someone had made the statement that "faith requires lack of reasoning". I responded with a correctionary statement that "blind faith requires a lack of reasoning". They responded in turn to say that "All faith is blind". I probably should have seen the warning signs immediately, but I didn't.
I proceeded to lay out arguments that there is a fundamental difference between faith that is oblivious, willfully or otherwise, of any contradictions, and faith that actively acknowledges these and wrestles with them. I've been working on my terseness, so I kept it simple and short (although I worked in a somewhat subtle reference to The Raven). I did not meet the expected outcome. The partner in this debate saw no difference between the two.
I then compared the latter type of faith to the scientific method, noting the parallels in hypothesis, in testing, and in observation. I specifically brought up how theories and hypothesis are labeled such because they aren't conclusively proven, meaning that on some level a step or leap of faith must be taken to believe their veracity. I probably shouldn't have wasted any more of his or my time after this point, as it should have been painfully obvious what was going on. He proceded to dispute the idea that there were any parallels between science and religion at all, declaring science's ability to "turn on a dime" and trumpeting the dogmatic practices of religion.
The specific instance that spawned my concious realization of his fallacy came in his final response, final because I stopped responding. Aside from demonstrating he wasn't informed on Cold Fusion, he also brought up how when the Shroud of Turin was carbon dated, "Religion" denied the acquired date stating "carbon dating is a sham". This was when I had my epiphany as to what was going on, one other than him being a zealous, dogmatic, and simultaneously ignorant scientismist. That's judgemental of me, and possibly unfair. I probably looked quite the zealous defender of "Religion" myself, except I wasn't the one who brought up God, religion, or the Shroud of Turin. I was arguing in entirely scientific terms until non-scientific ones were brought in, with the possible exclusion of "faith" itself.
In any case, my opposite in this quarrel demonstrated a remarkable talent for improper lumping.
He used the extremely broad term "Religion" when referring to the reaction to the Shroud of Turin's carbon dating. To my knowledge, the only affected religion was Christianity. I'm not aware of any Daoists, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindi, Wiccans, or Muslims who raised an outcry about this. I'm pretty sure Scientologists were equally indifferent.
That was only the outer-most level of it, while there were certainly Christians raising a cry over the result it certainly wasn't all Christians. I'm fairly confident that large portions of the Church did not participate in the outcry, did not care, or even accepted that the Shroud of Turin might not really be what it was cracked up to be. I'd even wager that there wasn't a single major denomination which was completely unified in its response.
What we have here is a failure to unlump. The actions of a small fraction of "Religion" or "Christianity" are attributed to the whole when the representation no long holds. This would have gotten a big ZERO on those Physics tests.
Perhaps I have misjudged the person, but their tone and message seemed rather clear to me. They seemed condescending, selective in their evidence and facts, and lumped people and events into "Science" and "Religion" in ways that were fair to neither. I will not claim that my points or ideas were perfect. However, I do feel that my "grey" arguments collided headlong into "black and white" thinking.
I suppose I frequently post these altercations here for a second opinion. I want to know if I'm being mean-spirited, dogmatic, "black and white" or otherwise judging unfairly. When I'm arguing over the internet, this is the only accountability I have.
20070306
Serrano
There was a recent entry of my sisters that sparked some interesting notions and ideas. In response to my comment, my sister linked the wikipedia entry for Serrano and an interview as well. My primary concern being his motivation and ideas, the wikipedia entry failed to help me much.
The first time I started reading the interview I literally closed the browser out after two sentences. Something fundamental about the man's attitude offended me, and I was entirely unable to even so much as look at the interview without the feeling resurging. It was an unnerving experience, though a silent one. An apt term might be that I mentally retched, not at the man himself but at the ideas he put forth.
The following is my nitpicky response to him. He may never read it, but it is necessary to rest my soul and to avoid a disservice to the man by not properly ingesting his words. On some level I may still be unfair to him as I will only cite sentences and small phrases, but it is still the entire context of what we are given in the interview on which I am basing my assumptions and statements.
"As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the Church and resented being told not to." - Serrano
I can understand the resentment he might feel, but it does not appear to me he understands the resentment others feel. This is exemplified in his use of the word "right". In his view it is an intrinsic right for all who are or have been Christians to use the symbols of the Church. I completely disagree on this point. The use of any symbol, the taking of any artistic license, is a privilage. It is a privilage protected by the right of free speech, but it is based on the good will and faith of the people. It was perfectly legitimate for him to use the symbols, but that does not make it a "right". His having been Catholic does not grant him any additional privilage or right over a Muslim, an Atheist or a Wiccan in using Christian symbols. Better insight, a relevant point of view perhaps. A greater likelihood to be taken to Christian discussions and forums perhaps. But no intrinsic right or advantage over his fellow man.
More importantly, having been Christian he should have known the importance of Christian symbols. These symbols do not belong to Christians but to God and Christ. We are caretakers and nothing more, and it is our witness and use of these symbols that are evaluated by the people around us and by God. They are not things to be taken lightly or passively akin to a company logo. They are sacred.
It was entirely possible in my mind that Piss Christ was a work whose intent was purely good, and whose message was obscured by the medium. Thus far, there is a taint of arrogance which sullies the purity of his labors. As he has stated thus far, this was merely formed from "obsession" rather than any endearing message. Perhaps I judge too quickly.
"I like to believe that rather than destroy icons, I make new ones." - Serrano
The issue at stake isn't the destruction of icons, it is the marring of symbols, it is the issue of harm, and it is the necessity of new icons. Is harming the imagery of the cross and other important symbols in Christianity worth the creation of new icons? Are these new icons necessary? What is the purpose of these new icons? I have not found an explanation of Serrano of the Piss Christ or any specific work, and that vexes me. Perhaps it is my computer-oriented mind enjoying definitions, perhaps not. In any case, I dislike the artistic tendency to obfuscate intended meaning. As a poet and writer, I find that the explicit statement of intended meaning does not prevent the stimulating exercise of finding alternative interpretations. He says that he is at least attempting to create new icons, something sacred, but his method is inherently sacrilegious. I feel as though he has not considered the harm his work may cause to the symbols he obsesses over, and to the people for whom those symbols are important.
"I am just an artist. That is the way that it should be." - Serrano
At least on this point I can agree. I have never believed that ethnicity should somehow be tied into profession as though it enhances it somehow. Different ethnicities and cultures may have tendencies, but merit alone should suffice. Michael Jordon is a basketball player, being black isn't important. Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft, being white isn't important. Serrano is an artist.
Much of the later interview does not deal directly with what bothered me, and is also largely boring. One graceful moment is where Serrano acknoledges that the controversy forced him to connect with people and become less anti-social, that the whole tihng confused him and hurt him, and that it caused him grief.
I'm going to conclude that Serrano meant well with his work, but was ignorant of the consequences thereof. Refusing until that point to connect with people, he failed to understand that his work might be viewed in a radically different light than his own. I don't believe it was his intent to begin a controversy. However, the consequences of his actions are still his. He is imperfect, as I am, and will always be. He must deal both with what harm he has caused and what help he has given.
Despite my favorable evaluation of the man, I must express my dislike for much of his work. Though growing in connection with people, much of his art causes upset without direction for reconciliation. His ideas are interesting, but in action he does himself little justice. In closing, his photography of the KKK and homeless people intrigues me and gives me hope that more of his work will touch on sensitive subjects without drawing out conflict, but rather creates a small gnawing of discomfort that prefaces social change.
The first time I started reading the interview I literally closed the browser out after two sentences. Something fundamental about the man's attitude offended me, and I was entirely unable to even so much as look at the interview without the feeling resurging. It was an unnerving experience, though a silent one. An apt term might be that I mentally retched, not at the man himself but at the ideas he put forth.
The following is my nitpicky response to him. He may never read it, but it is necessary to rest my soul and to avoid a disservice to the man by not properly ingesting his words. On some level I may still be unfair to him as I will only cite sentences and small phrases, but it is still the entire context of what we are given in the interview on which I am basing my assumptions and statements.
"As a former Catholic, and as someone who even today is not opposed to being called a Christian, I felt I had every right to use the symbols of the Church and resented being told not to." - Serrano
I can understand the resentment he might feel, but it does not appear to me he understands the resentment others feel. This is exemplified in his use of the word "right". In his view it is an intrinsic right for all who are or have been Christians to use the symbols of the Church. I completely disagree on this point. The use of any symbol, the taking of any artistic license, is a privilage. It is a privilage protected by the right of free speech, but it is based on the good will and faith of the people. It was perfectly legitimate for him to use the symbols, but that does not make it a "right". His having been Catholic does not grant him any additional privilage or right over a Muslim, an Atheist or a Wiccan in using Christian symbols. Better insight, a relevant point of view perhaps. A greater likelihood to be taken to Christian discussions and forums perhaps. But no intrinsic right or advantage over his fellow man.
More importantly, having been Christian he should have known the importance of Christian symbols. These symbols do not belong to Christians but to God and Christ. We are caretakers and nothing more, and it is our witness and use of these symbols that are evaluated by the people around us and by God. They are not things to be taken lightly or passively akin to a company logo. They are sacred.
It was entirely possible in my mind that Piss Christ was a work whose intent was purely good, and whose message was obscured by the medium. Thus far, there is a taint of arrogance which sullies the purity of his labors. As he has stated thus far, this was merely formed from "obsession" rather than any endearing message. Perhaps I judge too quickly.
"I like to believe that rather than destroy icons, I make new ones." - Serrano
The issue at stake isn't the destruction of icons, it is the marring of symbols, it is the issue of harm, and it is the necessity of new icons. Is harming the imagery of the cross and other important symbols in Christianity worth the creation of new icons? Are these new icons necessary? What is the purpose of these new icons? I have not found an explanation of Serrano of the Piss Christ or any specific work, and that vexes me. Perhaps it is my computer-oriented mind enjoying definitions, perhaps not. In any case, I dislike the artistic tendency to obfuscate intended meaning. As a poet and writer, I find that the explicit statement of intended meaning does not prevent the stimulating exercise of finding alternative interpretations. He says that he is at least attempting to create new icons, something sacred, but his method is inherently sacrilegious. I feel as though he has not considered the harm his work may cause to the symbols he obsesses over, and to the people for whom those symbols are important.
"I am just an artist. That is the way that it should be." - Serrano
At least on this point I can agree. I have never believed that ethnicity should somehow be tied into profession as though it enhances it somehow. Different ethnicities and cultures may have tendencies, but merit alone should suffice. Michael Jordon is a basketball player, being black isn't important. Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft, being white isn't important. Serrano is an artist.
Much of the later interview does not deal directly with what bothered me, and is also largely boring. One graceful moment is where Serrano acknoledges that the controversy forced him to connect with people and become less anti-social, that the whole tihng confused him and hurt him, and that it caused him grief.
I'm going to conclude that Serrano meant well with his work, but was ignorant of the consequences thereof. Refusing until that point to connect with people, he failed to understand that his work might be viewed in a radically different light than his own. I don't believe it was his intent to begin a controversy. However, the consequences of his actions are still his. He is imperfect, as I am, and will always be. He must deal both with what harm he has caused and what help he has given.
Despite my favorable evaluation of the man, I must express my dislike for much of his work. Though growing in connection with people, much of his art causes upset without direction for reconciliation. His ideas are interesting, but in action he does himself little justice. In closing, his photography of the KKK and homeless people intrigues me and gives me hope that more of his work will touch on sensitive subjects without drawing out conflict, but rather creates a small gnawing of discomfort that prefaces social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
