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.
20070918
Prognostication: Everest at Range
I had listed the Ice Climber's return as "Probable" and here they are. At the same time, they've been completely overshadowed by today's announcement.
Super Smash Brothers: Brawl will be playable over the internet.
I don't know about you, but I can think of several dozen people who just cackled maniacally, expounding upon dire machinations of my doom with tumultuous thunder crashing in the background.
Sakurai makes a note that should be common sense to just about everyone, things over the internet experience lag. This is probably the most honest I've ever heard a game developer when it comes to internet gaming. If you listen to comments from developers about Halo 3's online cooperative mode, or Unreal's fragfests you don't hear them saying "Well, we can't promise the same twitchfest action a LAN allows." There's no acknowledging the obvious with them, but Sakurai is humble enough to admit that his code is not some magic panacea for the ailments of the internet. There will be lag, it will suck on occasion, and a little electric rodent is going to defeat your brave swordsman handily because of it.
We'll see how this all pans out, but I would again recommend getting a Wii now even if you don't intend on using it for months. December 3rd they will be sold out, guaranteed.
Super Smash Brothers: Brawl will be playable over the internet.
I don't know about you, but I can think of several dozen people who just cackled maniacally, expounding upon dire machinations of my doom with tumultuous thunder crashing in the background.
Sakurai makes a note that should be common sense to just about everyone, things over the internet experience lag. This is probably the most honest I've ever heard a game developer when it comes to internet gaming. If you listen to comments from developers about Halo 3's online cooperative mode, or Unreal's fragfests you don't hear them saying "Well, we can't promise the same twitchfest action a LAN allows." There's no acknowledging the obvious with them, but Sakurai is humble enough to admit that his code is not some magic panacea for the ailments of the internet. There will be lag, it will suck on occasion, and a little electric rodent is going to defeat your brave swordsman handily because of it.
We'll see how this all pans out, but I would again recommend getting a Wii now even if you don't intend on using it for months. December 3rd they will be sold out, guaranteed.
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.
20070822
Prognostication: Princesses and Monkey Business
Double the fun in this post because I didn't particularly bother before.
Peach is in. She was in the "Sure Bets" category. I don't think there's much to say here, except I hope her final smash is a giant radish.
Diddy Kong looks like he'll actually be an interesting addition. I don't expect to see anyone else from the Donkey Kong zone, and I still only expect a total of two from the "Maybe" category. This means that Toad, Black Shadow, Wolf Link/Midna, Dark Samus, some character from Mother 3 and Star Wolf are all going to have to duke it out to see who is in the game. However, I'm officially downgrading Toad to "Iffy". Peach clearly can still use him as a shield; fighting him at the same time would be awkward.
The pace for character announcements has been about what I expected on average. There was a dry spell for a while, but we've been recently hit by a slightly greater number of characters. I'm personally still waiting for Luigi, I'll never get enough of the Green Missile.
Peach is in. She was in the "Sure Bets" category. I don't think there's much to say here, except I hope her final smash is a giant radish.
Diddy Kong looks like he'll actually be an interesting addition. I don't expect to see anyone else from the Donkey Kong zone, and I still only expect a total of two from the "Maybe" category. This means that Toad, Black Shadow, Wolf Link/Midna, Dark Samus, some character from Mother 3 and Star Wolf are all going to have to duke it out to see who is in the game. However, I'm officially downgrading Toad to "Iffy". Peach clearly can still use him as a shield; fighting him at the same time would be awkward.
The pace for character announcements has been about what I expected on average. There was a dry spell for a while, but we've been recently hit by a slightly greater number of characters. I'm personally still waiting for Luigi, I'll never get enough of the Green Missile.
20070821
Automatic Mario
There are at least eight of these for you Mario fans. The audio sometimes desyncs, but they're amazing. Who'd have thought someone would use Mario as a kinetic sculpture of sorts?
20070820
Loss
At 3:30 PM today my grandmother died. This picture is her with my brother, seven and a half years ago on her birthday.
I am eternally grateful to God that I had the opportunity to see her one last time when I vacationed back in Massachusetts several weeks ago. I became melancholy during my time in Japan almost two years ago when I realized that I might not see her alive again.
Callous is the person who, even preparing for the certain and coming death of a loved one, feels nothing at their passing. Though this day has been approaching for months and years, though I have said my final goodbyes and showered my dear grandmother with my love at every visit, though I have comfort in God I find upon my cheeks the caking salt of tears.
I despise the role of the eulogist, it is impossible. How can one possibly take the lifespan of one person and memorialize it properly? How can one distill the love, the person, the memories known and forgotten, the places and times, the world as it was and now is, the others who passed and have since come, the meals and gatherings, the lessons and mistakes, the heart and soul of any one person? It is a fool's task. Should it ever be asked of me, I will do little but stand at the podium and break down in tears. There is nothing else that befits the position.
Words, those tools that I have often plied with great precision and care, and other times with incredible inaccuracy and wanton abandon, completely fail their master. I could apply any number of adjectives, descriptors, stories and prose to attempt to capture the essence of who my grandmother was; I would certainly scrawl a miserable account that could not even begin to describe this woman.
For now I shall simply grieve.
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.
Prognostication: Pokeyman Championships
*poke*
I have to admit here and now, I didn't see this coming at all. I had reasoned as followed.
1) Many, many people would love to beat the ever-living crap out of Ash or a look-alike.
2) Ash or a look-alike are both completely devoid of viable combat skills.
3) Therefore, Ash and/or a look-alike are not viable as fighters, although they'd make excellent shoe-in replacements for the home run bag.
Obviously, Nintendo thought differently.
Sadly, we will not be able to beat the ever-living crap out of the trainer himself, but only his pokemon. This is fine, so long as they don't use Ash's whiny voice. I will change the voice options to Japanese without blinking if I hear that horror upon horrors again.
In any case, it looks like we're going to see a lot of very unique fighters. Ridley's chances just shot up, in my opinion.
I have to admit here and now, I didn't see this coming at all. I had reasoned as followed.
1) Many, many people would love to beat the ever-living crap out of Ash or a look-alike.
2) Ash or a look-alike are both completely devoid of viable combat skills.
3) Therefore, Ash and/or a look-alike are not viable as fighters, although they'd make excellent shoe-in replacements for the home run bag.
Obviously, Nintendo thought differently.
Sadly, we will not be able to beat the ever-living crap out of the trainer himself, but only his pokemon. This is fine, so long as they don't use Ash's whiny voice. I will change the voice options to Japanese without blinking if I hear that horror upon horrors again.
In any case, it looks like we're going to see a lot of very unique fighters. Ridley's chances just shot up, in my opinion.
20070810
Fury of the Winds
Warning: Another World of Warcraft related post.
Blizzard has hotfixed the Windfury totem such that its effect no longer activates on 'yellow' damage save for 'On Next Swing' abilities. This has caused another uproar on the forums.
I made a thread defending the change, arguing that the totem was a crutch. All Melee DPS was depending on that one buff, and as such there was a single point of failure. Most Melee DPS classes arguably were overdependent upon the totem, and now can receive buffs to increase their individual capabilities.
I did acknowledge that no such buffs have been received, and that there are no details on buffs for the Warrior class which was the most dependent on it of all Melee DPS. However, I still happen to have faith that Blizzard knows what they're doing (this change is evidence in my mind).
My thread generated a rather large amount of interest/flames, and now sports 3 posts from a 'Blue'.
What is interesting is the utter hostility I received, although it isn't surprising. While there are many factors, I believe that in any situation where a mass of people are upset about something any dissenting view that they're overreacting will quickly be punished. The idea that anyone could be content with the horrific change is one to be eliminated immediately. Hence, I was on the receiving end of a fair amount of anger, ad hominems etc.
Personally, I'm excited about the possibility of buffs to offset this.
Blizzard has hotfixed the Windfury totem such that its effect no longer activates on 'yellow' damage save for 'On Next Swing' abilities. This has caused another uproar on the forums.
I made a thread defending the change, arguing that the totem was a crutch. All Melee DPS was depending on that one buff, and as such there was a single point of failure. Most Melee DPS classes arguably were overdependent upon the totem, and now can receive buffs to increase their individual capabilities.
I did acknowledge that no such buffs have been received, and that there are no details on buffs for the Warrior class which was the most dependent on it of all Melee DPS. However, I still happen to have faith that Blizzard knows what they're doing (this change is evidence in my mind).
My thread generated a rather large amount of interest/flames, and now sports 3 posts from a 'Blue'.
What is interesting is the utter hostility I received, although it isn't surprising. While there are many factors, I believe that in any situation where a mass of people are upset about something any dissenting view that they're overreacting will quickly be punished. The idea that anyone could be content with the horrific change is one to be eliminated immediately. Hence, I was on the receiving end of a fair amount of anger, ad hominems etc.
Personally, I'm excited about the possibility of buffs to offset this.
20070808
For the living!
Hellgate: London was recently announced to be launched on October 13st. Here I had thought I'd never look forward to Halloween again.
For the uninformed, Hellgate: London is a game being made by a group of ex-Blizzard employees largely responsible for the Diablo series, including the legendary Bill Roper. It's a game that looks quite capable of being all things to all people.
It can be played in third or first person perspective, you can pay to play like an MMO or just play for free minus a few spurious benefits. You can be a technophile, a holy warrior, or a demonic spellcaster (all cliches perhaps, but well crafted). The game looks good.
This is going to be a good fall. Halo 3, Brawl and Hellgate. I may just have to quit WoW.
For the uninformed, Hellgate: London is a game being made by a group of ex-Blizzard employees largely responsible for the Diablo series, including the legendary Bill Roper. It's a game that looks quite capable of being all things to all people.
It can be played in third or first person perspective, you can pay to play like an MMO or just play for free minus a few spurious benefits. You can be a technophile, a holy warrior, or a demonic spellcaster (all cliches perhaps, but well crafted). The game looks good.
This is going to be a good fall. Halo 3, Brawl and Hellgate. I may just have to quit WoW.
20070807
Date an Ugly Person
You don't have a choice. Allpeople are ugly.
The standards that the media have concocted for what a woman or a man should look like are absolutely ridiculous. Don't abide by them, because there isn't a beautiful person alive if they are the measure.
So date an ugly, hideous and twisted visage of all that is right and natural*. You'll thanks yourself later.
On a side note, this site lead me to that link. Visiting is highly recommended. You might not agree with the man, you might not like him, but he's more than willing to talk about whatever subject with you on equal terms, so long as you aren't being a jerk. He'll make lots of fun of you if you're a jerk.
*according to cosmetics companies.
The standards that the media have concocted for what a woman or a man should look like are absolutely ridiculous. Don't abide by them, because there isn't a beautiful person alive if they are the measure.
So date an ugly, hideous and twisted visage of all that is right and natural*. You'll thanks yourself later.
On a side note, this site lead me to that link. Visiting is highly recommended. You might not agree with the man, you might not like him, but he's more than willing to talk about whatever subject with you on equal terms, so long as you aren't being a jerk. He'll make lots of fun of you if you're a jerk.
*according to cosmetics companies.
20070806
Edutainment?
There's an interesting article from the bbc talking about why we play video games. I find the idea that we like video games because of the learning aspect fascinating, but that's not what I'll address here. Give the article a good read, it's short.
What struck me about the article was summarized very nicely by a quote from withing the article itself.
That portion stood out to me. I immediately wondered when the last time she tried some new hobby was.
For those of you adept at [insert hobby/skill/talent here], it can be very hard to remember when things were difficult. That first G chord on the guitar was probably sour, bit into your fingers, and you probably took a minute or two to even get your fingers in the right place. The first time you fell off a bike probably wasn't 15 second after the first time you got on one. The first time you strung a sentence together your handwriting was likely unreadable, your grammar reminiscent of a Neanderthal, and your spelling resembling a typewriter's nightmare. In short, from the very beginning you were a loser (in the sense the article portrays one).
Perhaps video games are special in the wealth of learning they provide, but they are not unique in being repetitive or punishing. How much time must one spend "grinding" their guitar skill before that G chord is passable? How much more before you can even attempt to play those nifty music pieces that inspired you to try? How many pancakes or eggs must one cook before one's hands are no longer frequented by burns from skimming the heated metal pan? These things are incredibly time consuming, frustrating, and even cause direct physical harm. They, like video games, require a fair amount of repetition before one has "beaten" them.
That is my only real critique of the article. From here we could spiral into endless musings about the differences between video games and other hobbies, but I think I've made my point.
What struck me about the article was summarized very nicely by a quote from withing the article itself.
" And - here's the kicker - games aren't just boring, inconvenient, and over-priced. They're designed to make you feel like a failure.
There's a very good chance - a certainty in most games - that there will come a point where the game will beat you. Where you'll sit in your own house while a bit of software you paid big money for, and devoted hours to, calls you a loser."
That portion stood out to me. I immediately wondered when the last time she tried some new hobby was.
For those of you adept at [insert hobby/skill/talent here], it can be very hard to remember when things were difficult. That first G chord on the guitar was probably sour, bit into your fingers, and you probably took a minute or two to even get your fingers in the right place. The first time you fell off a bike probably wasn't 15 second after the first time you got on one. The first time you strung a sentence together your handwriting was likely unreadable, your grammar reminiscent of a Neanderthal, and your spelling resembling a typewriter's nightmare. In short, from the very beginning you were a loser (in the sense the article portrays one).
Perhaps video games are special in the wealth of learning they provide, but they are not unique in being repetitive or punishing. How much time must one spend "grinding" their guitar skill before that G chord is passable? How much more before you can even attempt to play those nifty music pieces that inspired you to try? How many pancakes or eggs must one cook before one's hands are no longer frequented by burns from skimming the heated metal pan? These things are incredibly time consuming, frustrating, and even cause direct physical harm. They, like video games, require a fair amount of repetition before one has "beaten" them.
That is my only real critique of the article. From here we could spiral into endless musings about the differences between video games and other hobbies, but I think I've made my point.
Prognostication: Missing Links
What's this? Another successful prognostication by yours truly? Indeed, once again I have correctly divined the future of Super Smash Brothers Brawl's roster of fighters.
But wait! This is blasphemy, this is madness! There has been no update to the official website that details such juicy information! Madness? This is a helpful URL to information from Eiji Aonuma!
That's right, Sheik and Ganondorf will be returning. There is nothing official as to any changes, drastic or simple, to the legendary villain's moveset. However, chances are we will see him more in tune with the recent Twilight Princess interpretation.
Now I really need to beat that game.
Lastly, in honor of an excited friend and my last successful prognostication, I end with the following image.
But wait! This is blasphemy, this is madness! There has been no update to the official website that details such juicy information! Madness? This is a helpful URL to information from Eiji Aonuma!
That's right, Sheik and Ganondorf will be returning. There is nothing official as to any changes, drastic or simple, to the legendary villain's moveset. However, chances are we will see him more in tune with the recent Twilight Princess interpretation.
Now I really need to beat that game.
Lastly, in honor of an excited friend and my last successful prognostication, I end with the following image.
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.
20070801
Prognostication: Ike
As an FYI, I'm good.
Ike was just announced as a playable character. If you'll recall, I called that just a few days ago. As an encore, I predict lots of whining from Marth and Roy players before they even know how he fights, with a mild bit of tempered commentary from people who are intelligent enough to wait and see.
Also, the lottery numbers will be 6, 32, 17, 63 and 4 with the bonus ball being 12.
Ike was just announced as a playable character. If you'll recall, I called that just a few days ago. As an encore, I predict lots of whining from Marth and Roy players before they even know how he fights, with a mild bit of tempered commentary from people who are intelligent enough to wait and see.
Also, the lottery numbers will be 6, 32, 17, 63 and 4 with the bonus ball being 12.
20070726
Newcomer: Pong
I pay a lot of attention to Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and anyone else who pays as much attention as I do will probably have seen at one time or another a thread concerning a character someone wants to be in the game. These threads are incredible slugfests between fans who seem to think that allowing any other character than their favorite into Brawl will somehow jeopardize their favorite's chance.
Do I have news for them.
What follows is an overly thorough explanation as to who's in and who's out in Brawl.
There are two major attributes with two values that each character in Brawl may have. They can be a veteren or a newcomer, and be from a previously featured franchise or an unfeatured franchise. For the sake of this analysis we will start with featured franchises and extend them as far as seems feasible.
It is important to note that Sakurai Masahiro, the director of the game, has stated he is aiming for a roster 40 fighters strong, with 3 (hopefully) being third party.
Beginning with the obvious, we have the denizens of the Mushroom Kingdom. Officially, we already have four of them confirmed, Mario, Yoshi, Bowser and Wario. Ignoring Dr. Mario as a clone, we have Luigi and Peach from past games who will very likely reappear. The question becomes, will anyone else new appear from this franchise?
The answer is "probably" but there's only one that comes to mind, Toad. Outside of him, the number of appealing candidates is very thin. The various basic Mario baddies would universally be long stretches, Waluigi has never been in his own game or featured his own moveset, and Wart's crew also doesn't have much room to expand upon. So, we turn up the following list for Mario:
Confirmed: Mario, Yoshi, Bowser, Wario
Sure Bets: Luigi, Peach
Maybe: Toad
Iffy: Waluigi
Moving on we reach Donkey Kong. He's been confirmed, but looking at his series he's the major star. It's possible they could expand his frachise's presence with Diddy and Daisy Kong, but beyond that everything's a stretch. I'd be surprised if they didn't do something to expand there, it's just a hard question of what. So, for Donkey Kong:
Confirmed: Donkey Kong
Maybe: Diddy Kong, Daisy Kong
Iffy: Cranky Kong
Next is Captain Falcon. He is all but confirmed for the game, as we've seen stages and items relating to him. Still, official is offical and for now he's only a Sure Bet. Expanding on his series, however, is somewhat confusing. The character many thought was an obvious shoe in, Samurai Goroh, turned into an assist trophy. Almost all of the other racers are completely forgettable, or at least not popular enough to make an appearance as a fighter. This only leaves the villains as likely candidates, Black Shadow and perhaps Deathborn, but it seems tenuous. So, for Captain Falcon:
Sure Bets: Captain Falcon
Maybe: Black Shadow
Iffy: Deathborn
We have now reached the Zelda series. Link and Zelda have already been confirmed. Ignoring Young Link as a clone, that leaves Sheik (Zelda's alterego) and Ganondorf (not ignored for his importance) as unconfirmed but extremely likely combatants. Ganondorf is, however, extremely likely to see a moveset remake. It is unlikely we will see him featuring moves that mirror Captain Falcon.
As far as expanding the Zelda series showing in Brawl, there aren't a lot of options availible. You could bring in Windwaker Link, but it would take a fair amount of work to differentiate him from Link. More likely might be a Wolf Link/Midna pairing, but even that is questionable. Chances are, we might not see much more from the Zelda series at all.
Confirmed: Link, Zelda
Sure Bets: Sheik, Ganondorf
Maybe: Wolf Link/Midna
Iffy: Windwaker Link
The Metroid series, for only having one character, doesn't have much room for expansion. Beyond Samus and Zero-Suit Samus, the only plausible options are Dark Samus (tough to not make a clone) and Ridley (a rather popular option). Motherbrain and Kraid are simply too big, immobile and uninteresting.
Confirmed: Samus, Zero-Suit Samus
Probable: Ridley
Maybe: Dark Samus
Kirby and his Dreamland, sadly, don't have much to offer either. Following Meta-Knight the only other consistant (and plausible) character is King Dedede. Still, we could have a good three from Kirby.
Confirmed: Kirby, Meta-Knight
Probable: King Dedede
I'll hit on a few series without any expansion possibility. Ice-Climbers and Mr. Game & Watch don't bring with them any possibility of expansion. However, in order to hit the 37 Nintendo characters we will likely see them returning.
Probable: Ice Climbers, Mr. Game & Watch
Now we reach Earthbound. Of all the series currently featured, this one has the highest growth potential. Beyond the possible additions of Jeff and Poo from Earthbound, there are more potential characters from it's Japan-Only sequel. Sadly, most of Paula's abilities were stolen by Ness, and I find it unlikely Ness will be revamped to allow room for her.
Sure Bets: Ness
Probable: Jeff, Poo
Maybe: Mother 3 Characters
Not Happening: Paula
Star Fox has some interesting possibilities. Beyond Fox being confirmed, Falco is popular enough of a character that he will likely return in some heavily modified form. In addition to those two, there have been a number of calls for Star Wolf to be playable, and a nigh torrent for Krystal. I find the latter more likely than the former.
Confirmed: Fox
Sure Bets: Krystal, Falco
Maybe: Wolf
500+ Pokemon, and I can't think of any that are obvious choices to be added to the game. Pikachu, Jigglypuff and Mewtwo all had significance in that they were critical characters in the anime series. I have long since stopped watching that series. If any new pokemon is to appear as a playable character, they are going to be related to the anime.
Confirmed: Pikachuu
Sure Bets: Jigglypuff, Mewtwo
Probable: Another Pokemon
Not Happening: Pichu
Lastly we reach Fire Emblem. To tell you straight, I don't expect either Marth or Roy to return. Roy is a clone, and Marth's series is both old and largely unknown in the US. Chances are we'll see Marth replaced by a nearly identical Ike, accompanied by characters from his recent entries into the series.
Sure Bets: Ike
Probable: Titania, Soren
Not Happening: Marth, Roy
Lets take a quick census here.
Confirmed: 13
Sure Bets: 10
Probable: 9
Maybe: 8
Iffy: 4
Gasp! What's going on? That's more than 37!
It is, and this means that not everyone seen here is going to make an appearance. We can expect at best one of the Iffy characters to be playable although that's very unlikely, we'll see one or two Maybe characters, most of the Probables, and if I have to tell you whether or not Sure Bets and Confirmed characters will be in or not you need more sleep. That means approximately 33 accounted for.
Who are the remaining 4? Good question. There could always be a few more from the Maybe category, but from frachises ot featured we could have some of the following:
Probable: Captain Olimar
Maybe: Something from Custom Robo
Iffy: Paper Mario
As for Third Parties
Confirmed: Solid Snake
Probable: Mega Man, Belmont, Arucard
Not Happening: Sonic
Yes, no Sonic. Mario and Sonic at the Olympics is a title lauded for being their first meeting in friendly competition. Having them meet in a violent brawl beforehand takes the wind out of the sails.
So there you have it. My predictions regarding Brawl. December 3rd can't come quickly enough.
Do I have news for them.
What follows is an overly thorough explanation as to who's in and who's out in Brawl.
There are two major attributes with two values that each character in Brawl may have. They can be a veteren or a newcomer, and be from a previously featured franchise or an unfeatured franchise. For the sake of this analysis we will start with featured franchises and extend them as far as seems feasible.
It is important to note that Sakurai Masahiro, the director of the game, has stated he is aiming for a roster 40 fighters strong, with 3 (hopefully) being third party.
Beginning with the obvious, we have the denizens of the Mushroom Kingdom. Officially, we already have four of them confirmed, Mario, Yoshi, Bowser and Wario. Ignoring Dr. Mario as a clone, we have Luigi and Peach from past games who will very likely reappear. The question becomes, will anyone else new appear from this franchise?
The answer is "probably" but there's only one that comes to mind, Toad. Outside of him, the number of appealing candidates is very thin. The various basic Mario baddies would universally be long stretches, Waluigi has never been in his own game or featured his own moveset, and Wart's crew also doesn't have much room to expand upon. So, we turn up the following list for Mario:
Confirmed: Mario, Yoshi, Bowser, Wario
Sure Bets: Luigi, Peach
Maybe: Toad
Iffy: Waluigi
Moving on we reach Donkey Kong. He's been confirmed, but looking at his series he's the major star. It's possible they could expand his frachise's presence with Diddy and Daisy Kong, but beyond that everything's a stretch. I'd be surprised if they didn't do something to expand there, it's just a hard question of what. So, for Donkey Kong:
Confirmed: Donkey Kong
Maybe: Diddy Kong, Daisy Kong
Iffy: Cranky Kong
Next is Captain Falcon. He is all but confirmed for the game, as we've seen stages and items relating to him. Still, official is offical and for now he's only a Sure Bet. Expanding on his series, however, is somewhat confusing. The character many thought was an obvious shoe in, Samurai Goroh, turned into an assist trophy. Almost all of the other racers are completely forgettable, or at least not popular enough to make an appearance as a fighter. This only leaves the villains as likely candidates, Black Shadow and perhaps Deathborn, but it seems tenuous. So, for Captain Falcon:
Sure Bets: Captain Falcon
Maybe: Black Shadow
Iffy: Deathborn
We have now reached the Zelda series. Link and Zelda have already been confirmed. Ignoring Young Link as a clone, that leaves Sheik (Zelda's alterego) and Ganondorf (not ignored for his importance) as unconfirmed but extremely likely combatants. Ganondorf is, however, extremely likely to see a moveset remake. It is unlikely we will see him featuring moves that mirror Captain Falcon.
As far as expanding the Zelda series showing in Brawl, there aren't a lot of options availible. You could bring in Windwaker Link, but it would take a fair amount of work to differentiate him from Link. More likely might be a Wolf Link/Midna pairing, but even that is questionable. Chances are, we might not see much more from the Zelda series at all.
Confirmed: Link, Zelda
Sure Bets: Sheik, Ganondorf
Maybe: Wolf Link/Midna
Iffy: Windwaker Link
The Metroid series, for only having one character, doesn't have much room for expansion. Beyond Samus and Zero-Suit Samus, the only plausible options are Dark Samus (tough to not make a clone) and Ridley (a rather popular option). Motherbrain and Kraid are simply too big, immobile and uninteresting.
Confirmed: Samus, Zero-Suit Samus
Probable: Ridley
Maybe: Dark Samus
Kirby and his Dreamland, sadly, don't have much to offer either. Following Meta-Knight the only other consistant (and plausible) character is King Dedede. Still, we could have a good three from Kirby.
Confirmed: Kirby, Meta-Knight
Probable: King Dedede
I'll hit on a few series without any expansion possibility. Ice-Climbers and Mr. Game & Watch don't bring with them any possibility of expansion. However, in order to hit the 37 Nintendo characters we will likely see them returning.
Probable: Ice Climbers, Mr. Game & Watch
Now we reach Earthbound. Of all the series currently featured, this one has the highest growth potential. Beyond the possible additions of Jeff and Poo from Earthbound, there are more potential characters from it's Japan-Only sequel. Sadly, most of Paula's abilities were stolen by Ness, and I find it unlikely Ness will be revamped to allow room for her.
Sure Bets: Ness
Probable: Jeff, Poo
Maybe: Mother 3 Characters
Not Happening: Paula
Star Fox has some interesting possibilities. Beyond Fox being confirmed, Falco is popular enough of a character that he will likely return in some heavily modified form. In addition to those two, there have been a number of calls for Star Wolf to be playable, and a nigh torrent for Krystal. I find the latter more likely than the former.
Confirmed: Fox
Sure Bets: Krystal, Falco
Maybe: Wolf
500+ Pokemon, and I can't think of any that are obvious choices to be added to the game. Pikachu, Jigglypuff and Mewtwo all had significance in that they were critical characters in the anime series. I have long since stopped watching that series. If any new pokemon is to appear as a playable character, they are going to be related to the anime.
Confirmed: Pikachuu
Sure Bets: Jigglypuff, Mewtwo
Probable: Another Pokemon
Not Happening: Pichu
Lastly we reach Fire Emblem. To tell you straight, I don't expect either Marth or Roy to return. Roy is a clone, and Marth's series is both old and largely unknown in the US. Chances are we'll see Marth replaced by a nearly identical Ike, accompanied by characters from his recent entries into the series.
Sure Bets: Ike
Probable: Titania, Soren
Not Happening: Marth, Roy
Lets take a quick census here.
Confirmed: 13
Sure Bets: 10
Probable: 9
Maybe: 8
Iffy: 4
Gasp! What's going on? That's more than 37!
It is, and this means that not everyone seen here is going to make an appearance. We can expect at best one of the Iffy characters to be playable although that's very unlikely, we'll see one or two Maybe characters, most of the Probables, and if I have to tell you whether or not Sure Bets and Confirmed characters will be in or not you need more sleep. That means approximately 33 accounted for.
Who are the remaining 4? Good question. There could always be a few more from the Maybe category, but from frachises ot featured we could have some of the following:
Probable: Captain Olimar
Maybe: Something from Custom Robo
Iffy: Paper Mario
As for Third Parties
Confirmed: Solid Snake
Probable: Mega Man, Belmont, Arucard
Not Happening: Sonic
Yes, no Sonic. Mario and Sonic at the Olympics is a title lauded for being their first meeting in friendly competition. Having them meet in a violent brawl beforehand takes the wind out of the sails.
So there you have it. My predictions regarding Brawl. December 3rd can't come quickly enough.
20070712
Wii iz 4 fite!
There were a lot of good games on the Gamecube. Such incredible titles as Metroid Prime, Mario Kart: Double Dash, Pikmin, Eternal Darkness and Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles graced the system. However, there was one game that dominates the console to this day:
Super Smash Brothers.
It's third iteration, Brawl, is on the way. If you are blissfully unaware, check out the official website. For someone long since used to Blizzard's style of information update (Read: You might learn something about the game after it comes out), this website is absolutely stunning. In fact, it puts the entire industry to shame.
Every weekday you get another tidbit of information. Usually it's something minor, like an in-game item or some previously announced character's moveset. Sometimes you get some neat new information, such as a new character. Today we got a 15 second teaser of actual gameplay footage, and the release date of the game!
Anyone planning on buying the game for Christmas should probably A) Reserve it at a local video game store as soon as possible and B) Start searching for a Wii now. The closer we come to the holidays the harder it is going to become to find one. This summer is probably the best time to look.
If you can't tell, I am very excited about this game. I am guaranteed to be reserving this tomorrow or Saturday, and I'm sure a lot of other enthusiastic gamers will as well. Quite simply, it's looking really sweet.
In other news, Mario Kart for the Wii comes out early next year. I don't remember if Brawl is online capable or not, but Mario Kart will be. Thus, if all my siblings are able to pick up a Wii, fun times will ensue!
You know you want to do it! Your future children/spouses will love you! Really!
Super Smash Brothers.
It's third iteration, Brawl, is on the way. If you are blissfully unaware, check out the official website. For someone long since used to Blizzard's style of information update (Read: You might learn something about the game after it comes out), this website is absolutely stunning. In fact, it puts the entire industry to shame.
Every weekday you get another tidbit of information. Usually it's something minor, like an in-game item or some previously announced character's moveset. Sometimes you get some neat new information, such as a new character. Today we got a 15 second teaser of actual gameplay footage, and the release date of the game!
Anyone planning on buying the game for Christmas should probably A) Reserve it at a local video game store as soon as possible and B) Start searching for a Wii now. The closer we come to the holidays the harder it is going to become to find one. This summer is probably the best time to look.
If you can't tell, I am very excited about this game. I am guaranteed to be reserving this tomorrow or Saturday, and I'm sure a lot of other enthusiastic gamers will as well. Quite simply, it's looking really sweet.
In other news, Mario Kart for the Wii comes out early next year. I don't remember if Brawl is online capable or not, but Mario Kart will be. Thus, if all my siblings are able to pick up a Wii, fun times will ensue!
You know you want to do it! Your future children/spouses will love you! Really!
20070711
E3 2007: Gut Reactions
I haven't actually watched any significant portion of the news conferences, the Sony conference isn't even over, but I thought I'd share with you my gut reactions about this year's E3.
Firstly, it's obviously very different. If you watched the conferences from previous years you'll note a significantly less active crowd. There are applause and cheers, but it feels unenthusiastic compared to the past. If it wasn't universal, you would think each of the big three gaming companies were in trouble.
Microsoft seems to be attempting to join the mini-games bandwagon with a Viva Pinata game of that flavor. Halo 3 looks absolutely awesome. Microsoft seems content to stay their course for the most part, while attempting to ramp up support for more casual gaming.
Nintendo annoyed a lot of hardcore gamers by focusing largely on casuals with their conference. Most of what was seen will be more of the family fun stuff like WiiSports and Wario Ware. There were tidbits for hardcore gamers (Mario Kart in the first months of 2008, Super Smash Bros Brawl on December 3rd 2007, online play and more), but it wasn't the focus of the show. Expect temper tantrums to continue before hardcore gamers realize that they aren't going to be the sole focus of gaming anymore.
Sony didn't impress me. The incoming games they've described show a lot of great ideas, and that's to their credit. They don't seem to have done anything extremely stupid this conference, so far anyway. However, I am going to level one severe criticism at them, namely the redesigned PSP. There are legitimate reasons for having done this, but the way they seem to have gone about it leads me to believe they are simply trying to duplicate the success of the DS Lite. As much as the DS redesign helped sleekify matters, I don't believe the already sleek PSP is going to benefit in the same way.
It's hard to know what to expect from the rest of E3. It'd be nice to get some news on Spore or Hellgate: London, but I'm not going to hold my breath as the layman is not the target of the new conference.
Firstly, it's obviously very different. If you watched the conferences from previous years you'll note a significantly less active crowd. There are applause and cheers, but it feels unenthusiastic compared to the past. If it wasn't universal, you would think each of the big three gaming companies were in trouble.
Microsoft seems to be attempting to join the mini-games bandwagon with a Viva Pinata game of that flavor. Halo 3 looks absolutely awesome. Microsoft seems content to stay their course for the most part, while attempting to ramp up support for more casual gaming.
Nintendo annoyed a lot of hardcore gamers by focusing largely on casuals with their conference. Most of what was seen will be more of the family fun stuff like WiiSports and Wario Ware. There were tidbits for hardcore gamers (Mario Kart in the first months of 2008, Super Smash Bros Brawl on December 3rd 2007, online play and more), but it wasn't the focus of the show. Expect temper tantrums to continue before hardcore gamers realize that they aren't going to be the sole focus of gaming anymore.
Sony didn't impress me. The incoming games they've described show a lot of great ideas, and that's to their credit. They don't seem to have done anything extremely stupid this conference, so far anyway. However, I am going to level one severe criticism at them, namely the redesigned PSP. There are legitimate reasons for having done this, but the way they seem to have gone about it leads me to believe they are simply trying to duplicate the success of the DS Lite. As much as the DS redesign helped sleekify matters, I don't believe the already sleek PSP is going to benefit in the same way.
It's hard to know what to expect from the rest of E3. It'd be nice to get some news on Spore or Hellgate: London, but I'm not going to hold my breath as the layman is not the target of the new conference.
20070706
WoW: Raid Progress
Last night was an interesting, and fun, experience.
We delved into the wizard's tower and experienced our first "raid" as a guild. Several interesting things happened.
Despite only a few of us having any experience with groups of this size, we did extremely well. Working with nine other people to defeat the dangers of the tower was a blast, especially when the unique traits I brought to the group were required. Though we largely failed to accomplish a whole lot, most groups are able to clear the whole tower in half the time we spent in there, it was a blast and an experience I'd love to repeat.
The only problem is that there are a limited number of players allowed inside, and we have more than that number eager to participate. Some people had to be left out, and I hate leaving people out. When the time comes I'll gladly serve my time outside of the wizard's tower, knowing that I'm letting someone else have the fun I had.
I'll continue updating as I participate in the guild's progression.
We delved into the wizard's tower and experienced our first "raid" as a guild. Several interesting things happened.
- We were slaughtered by spectral steeds (they came from.... behind).
- I died in the defense of the weak (twice).
- I lived in the defense of the weak (more than twice).
- The first boss was defeated at our hands, and there was much rejoicing (yay).
- We were slaughtered by the ghosts of angry barmaids, masters of drunken martial arts (more times than we want to remember).
- We were slaughtered by the wizard's butler (apparently he doesn't like unannounced guests).
- After many hours of trial and error, we left the wizard's tower, swearing we would return and conquer it on the morrow.
Despite only a few of us having any experience with groups of this size, we did extremely well. Working with nine other people to defeat the dangers of the tower was a blast, especially when the unique traits I brought to the group were required. Though we largely failed to accomplish a whole lot, most groups are able to clear the whole tower in half the time we spent in there, it was a blast and an experience I'd love to repeat.
The only problem is that there are a limited number of players allowed inside, and we have more than that number eager to participate. Some people had to be left out, and I hate leaving people out. When the time comes I'll gladly serve my time outside of the wizard's tower, knowing that I'm letting someone else have the fun I had.
I'll continue updating as I participate in the guild's progression.
20070705
WoW: Raid Prologue
World of Warcraft is a game that is sufficiently complicated to require its own terminology for a lot of things. "Raid" is one of such terms.
A "Raid" is a dungeon designed for a group of players numbering 10 or greater. These typically are complex and require a fair amount of coordination from the group. The rewards match the effort.
This evening I will be participating in a Raid for the first time. My guild is attempting to enter a powerful wizard's tower and delve into its mysteries. This guild was founded by an awesome married couple I met in-game and mentored somewhat, and through their hard work attracted other intelligent people. Our chance of death is staggeringly high.
Raiding is a large section of the game, and something I have heard much about but never experienced myself. I'll likely bring my feelings as to the subject here later.
I'd originally intended on delving into some theory concerning the group roles of WoW, but it came out incredibly dry and boring (even for me). You are all spared.
A "Raid" is a dungeon designed for a group of players numbering 10 or greater. These typically are complex and require a fair amount of coordination from the group. The rewards match the effort.
This evening I will be participating in a Raid for the first time. My guild is attempting to enter a powerful wizard's tower and delve into its mysteries. This guild was founded by an awesome married couple I met in-game and mentored somewhat, and through their hard work attracted other intelligent people. Our chance of death is staggeringly high.
Raiding is a large section of the game, and something I have heard much about but never experienced myself. I'll likely bring my feelings as to the subject here later.
I'd originally intended on delving into some theory concerning the group roles of WoW, but it came out incredibly dry and boring (even for me). You are all spared.
20070618
1 + 1 = 3
The title of this post is true. I'm not making jokes about very large values of 1, I'm pointing out that people sometimes seem to forget a non-mathematical principle concerning combinations and aggregations. Specifically:
A game console is more than a price, a marketing team, a controller, a set of games, a TV, and a few hours to burn. You can't extract the attributes of one, compare them to another, and mathematically define which is intrinsically better. Attributes are not a homogenous group, they will interact with each other. Controllers interact with graphical power, prices interact with the aestetic look of the system, and games interact with the ease of use. Failing to realize the interconnectedness can lead to the updated principle:
It's the same reason a well written script, a dedicated staff, a great director, awesome actors etc. can somehow fail to make a great movie, while a group of lesser quality with the right synergy can make epics.
In whatever you do that involves combination or aggregation, remember this.
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
A game console is more than a price, a marketing team, a controller, a set of games, a TV, and a few hours to burn. You can't extract the attributes of one, compare them to another, and mathematically define which is intrinsically better. Attributes are not a homogenous group, they will interact with each other. Controllers interact with graphical power, prices interact with the aestetic look of the system, and games interact with the ease of use. Failing to realize the interconnectedness can lead to the updated principle:
The whole is rarely the exact sum of its parts, but is often less or greater.
It's the same reason a well written script, a dedicated staff, a great director, awesome actors etc. can somehow fail to make a great movie, while a group of lesser quality with the right synergy can make epics.
In whatever you do that involves combination or aggregation, remember this.
20070615
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
Villains
I just finished watching Utawarerumono, and it's one of the best anime I've ever seen. Here's why.
I've seen many, many movies spanning a plethora of eras and genres. I've watched a lot of TV shows, a lot of short films, and been subject to a great number of video game plots both good and bad. These things tend to have villains.
Generally a lot of authors try to make you despise their villains whatever form they take; some being evil masterminds, homocidal psychopaths, quiet assassins, malevolent gods or whatever else happens to be the flavor of the day. I tend to be very difficult to make angry, or otherwise incur an emotion of hate. As such, it is very rare that I can use such a word pertaining to any character.
The last character I hated was Shinji from Neon Genesis Evangeleon, but he was the hero so he doesn't count.
Watching Utawarerumono, there was a moment where I genuinely despised, scorned, hated, and personally wished eternal suffering upon a character therein. I won't spoil why this came about; Utawarerumono is far too awesome of an anime for me to give things away. What I will say is that I was staring wildly at my computer screen with an unspeakable malice towards this fictional person. There were active machinations in my brain calculating the most suffering that could be exacted before final termination was inevitable. I was that incensed.
I have to give credit where it is due. Utawarerumono was that awesome of an anime that it made me mad. I think that's saying a lot.
I've seen many, many movies spanning a plethora of eras and genres. I've watched a lot of TV shows, a lot of short films, and been subject to a great number of video game plots both good and bad. These things tend to have villains.
Generally a lot of authors try to make you despise their villains whatever form they take; some being evil masterminds, homocidal psychopaths, quiet assassins, malevolent gods or whatever else happens to be the flavor of the day. I tend to be very difficult to make angry, or otherwise incur an emotion of hate. As such, it is very rare that I can use such a word pertaining to any character.
The last character I hated was Shinji from Neon Genesis Evangeleon, but he was the hero so he doesn't count.
Watching Utawarerumono, there was a moment where I genuinely despised, scorned, hated, and personally wished eternal suffering upon a character therein. I won't spoil why this came about; Utawarerumono is far too awesome of an anime for me to give things away. What I will say is that I was staring wildly at my computer screen with an unspeakable malice towards this fictional person. There were active machinations in my brain calculating the most suffering that could be exacted before final termination was inevitable. I was that incensed.
I have to give credit where it is due. Utawarerumono was that awesome of an anime that it made me mad. I think that's saying a lot.
20070607
I AM ERROR
There appears to be a strange glitch involving the template change. This appears to be IE specific, possibly relating to some CSS changes I made.
It also seems to only affect really short posts.
We'll see if I ever bother to fix it. A quick select or scroll past the missing text reveals it.
This post is mostly to let you know I'm aware, and also for testing purposes.
Testing results: The error only occurs if the post can be held within the entire window. It is related to some CSS float junk I've done, so anyone with insight into this is hereby ordered to freely relinquish their knowledge.
That is all.
It also seems to only affect really short posts.
We'll see if I ever bother to fix it. A quick select or scroll past the missing text reveals it.
This post is mostly to let you know I'm aware, and also for testing purposes.
Testing results: The error only occurs if the post can be held within the entire window. It is related to some CSS float junk I've done, so anyone with insight into this is hereby ordered to freely relinquish their knowledge.
That is all.
20070606
Hierarchy
1: I haven't finished tagging all my posts. That's not something ethicly viable to do at work, and when I'm home I'm generally doing more or less important things.
2: I did a quick, easy update to the blog template. It should be a lot easier to go through the archives.
That is all.
2: I did a quick, easy update to the blog template. It should be a lot easier to go through the archives.
That is all.
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.
20070519
Warp Field Stablized
At the Blizzard Entertainment Worldwide Invitational in South Korea, StarCraft II was announced.
I'm sure there'll be an official English page later today, complete with screenshots, but until then make do with what I've linked.
It's been a while since I've played any RTS games. I'd looked forward to Supreme Commander, but was rather disappointed with the result. It had been marketed as a "macromanagement" game, one where the insane amounts of micromanagement done in StarCraft and WarCraft would be unnecessary. Playing the Beta, I saw a few interesting tools that reduced some forms of micromanagement, but not the most common ones. Coordinating attacks isn't hard, it's having to individually order several hundred units that's bothersome.
StarCraft II currently doesn't claim to be the end of micromanagement. Without that expectation, I'm assuming I'll probably like it a lot more than Supreme Commander.
It's inevitable I'll blog more about this later. Until then.
I'm sure there'll be an official English page later today, complete with screenshots, but until then make do with what I've linked.
It's been a while since I've played any RTS games. I'd looked forward to Supreme Commander, but was rather disappointed with the result. It had been marketed as a "macromanagement" game, one where the insane amounts of micromanagement done in StarCraft and WarCraft would be unnecessary. Playing the Beta, I saw a few interesting tools that reduced some forms of micromanagement, but not the most common ones. Coordinating attacks isn't hard, it's having to individually order several hundred units that's bothersome.
StarCraft II currently doesn't claim to be the end of micromanagement. Without that expectation, I'm assuming I'll probably like it a lot more than Supreme Commander.
It's inevitable I'll blog more about this later. Until then.
20070506
Tough Questions
Lately I find myself dwelling overly much on a particular topic, which is a clear indication I need a creative outlet for it. To be specific, I've been wrestling with the issue of homosexuality. I remain confused as to what position I should take on the matter, but I've lately had a break through of sorts in guiding me.
For a few weeks now I've been participating in discussions on the subject and finding myself assailed on the idea that homosexuality is sin. There have been prevalent, and eloquent, arguments that homosexuality is not a choice anymore than I choose to be aroused by breasts. At first glance, this argument seemed strong and formidable against my own. The scriptural uncertainty certainly didn't help my confidence.
This is not to say that I have been deliberately attempting to fortify a position against homosexuality, but rather in attempting to understand my own feelings as to the subject I continually have felt that there was something "off" about it that leads me to remain uncertain.
However, I did note a certain epiphany on the matter, and it is something I am glad to have thought of.
After some deep thinking on the matter I was reminded of a french film my mother owned, Les Visiteurs. It opens with a french lord visiting some noblemen's daughter in a clearly sexual rendezvous. In a small room, the lord is aroused by the woman revealing her ankles to him.
That's the important part there. Ankles? Arousal? What prudishness is this?
It occurred to me that over the course of ages, what visual cues arouse men have not been static. Though breasts seem to be the order of the day in this time, different cultures and times past had different ideas. What of the tribes where women run around topless and without concern? What of the medieval lords and their ankle-lusting? What of now and restaurants such as "Twin Peaks" and "Hooters"? Obviously, there is a cultural component to the sexual cues for men.
How large that component is a matter for debate, but it seems irrefutable to me that to some extent our sexual desires are not shaped by our genome or nature, but by our culture or nurture.
On the flip side, we have the studies that show homosexuality runs in families, showing a clear genetic link to the end result of homosexuality, but I began to wonder how direct that link was. Purely hypothetical, but isn't it entirely possible that instead of a gene that determines homosexuality versus heterosexuality, there was a gene that inclined its bearers to reject typical modes of arousal? Without going into detail, such a gene seems far more likely to survive natural selection than one expressly dedicated to not reproducing.
That's where I stand at the moment. I'd encourage any of you who happen to peruse this place that sees updates but rarely to share your views as well. It would be deeply appreciated.
For a few weeks now I've been participating in discussions on the subject and finding myself assailed on the idea that homosexuality is sin. There have been prevalent, and eloquent, arguments that homosexuality is not a choice anymore than I choose to be aroused by breasts. At first glance, this argument seemed strong and formidable against my own. The scriptural uncertainty certainly didn't help my confidence.
This is not to say that I have been deliberately attempting to fortify a position against homosexuality, but rather in attempting to understand my own feelings as to the subject I continually have felt that there was something "off" about it that leads me to remain uncertain.
However, I did note a certain epiphany on the matter, and it is something I am glad to have thought of.
After some deep thinking on the matter I was reminded of a french film my mother owned, Les Visiteurs. It opens with a french lord visiting some noblemen's daughter in a clearly sexual rendezvous. In a small room, the lord is aroused by the woman revealing her ankles to him.
That's the important part there. Ankles? Arousal? What prudishness is this?
It occurred to me that over the course of ages, what visual cues arouse men have not been static. Though breasts seem to be the order of the day in this time, different cultures and times past had different ideas. What of the tribes where women run around topless and without concern? What of the medieval lords and their ankle-lusting? What of now and restaurants such as "Twin Peaks" and "Hooters"? Obviously, there is a cultural component to the sexual cues for men.
How large that component is a matter for debate, but it seems irrefutable to me that to some extent our sexual desires are not shaped by our genome or nature, but by our culture or nurture.
On the flip side, we have the studies that show homosexuality runs in families, showing a clear genetic link to the end result of homosexuality, but I began to wonder how direct that link was. Purely hypothetical, but isn't it entirely possible that instead of a gene that determines homosexuality versus heterosexuality, there was a gene that inclined its bearers to reject typical modes of arousal? Without going into detail, such a gene seems far more likely to survive natural selection than one expressly dedicated to not reproducing.
That's where I stand at the moment. I'd encourage any of you who happen to peruse this place that sees updates but rarely to share your views as well. It would be deeply appreciated.
20070427
Nintendomination
Yup, you guessed it. More good news for Nintendo has been released. Aside from reports left and right that the Wii is kicking butt, Nintendo nearly reached 6 million Wiis sold by the end of their fiscal year. However, more interesting are their projected future sales.
Nintendo stated that they project 14 million Wiis and 22 million DSs to be sold this fiscal year. That means that by the end of March 2008, there will be 20 million Wiis and 62 million DSs worldwide. I calculated the rate at which DSs and Wiis are being sold, and it was staggering.
Given the current numbers, Microsoft will need to sell 10 million Xbox 360s to keep their lead. Their latest sales figures aren't promising in this regard. Sony needs to push 17 million PS3s to catch up iwith the Wii. The PSP is already 16 million systems behind the DS. It doesn't look good for anyone trying to beat Nintendo.
In other news, here is a short list of games I wish there was more news for.
1. Spore
2. Hellgate: London
3. Super Smash Bros: Brawl
4. Halo 3
5. Dynasty Warriors 6
Nintendo stated that they project 14 million Wiis and 22 million DSs to be sold this fiscal year. That means that by the end of March 2008, there will be 20 million Wiis and 62 million DSs worldwide. I calculated the rate at which DSs and Wiis are being sold, and it was staggering.
Given the current numbers, Microsoft will need to sell 10 million Xbox 360s to keep their lead. Their latest sales figures aren't promising in this regard. Sony needs to push 17 million PS3s to catch up iwith the Wii. The PSP is already 16 million systems behind the DS. It doesn't look good for anyone trying to beat Nintendo.
In other news, here is a short list of games I wish there was more news for.
1. Spore
2. Hellgate: London
3. Super Smash Bros: Brawl
4. Halo 3
5. Dynasty Warriors 6
20070426
Grade School
Jack Thompson decided to sue the news site Kotaku over comments attached to an article dissecting his claims about video games being connected to the VA Tech shootings. This is his complaint.
I call your attention to page 27 of the PDF, #78. And I quote:
"This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a bar, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down his throat, and the exercise of other basic 'constitutional' rights to advocate violence against an individual………………………………………………………………Not!"
This is in an official document submitted to court.
Awe.
I call your attention to page 27 of the PDF, #78. And I quote:
"This was followed with other posts that Thompson should be struck with a bar, shot in the face by an irate gamer, castrated and his testicles stuffed down his throat, and the exercise of other basic 'constitutional' rights to advocate violence against an individual………………………………………………………………Not!"
This is in an official document submitted to court.
Awe.
20070423
Political Mishmash
I haven't commented on the VA Tech shooting here. It's partly because I'm overly opinionated, partly because I didn't think it was right to have one of those "BLOG MY REACTION" posts, and mostly because I've been in similar shoes to Cho's.
I'm not about to comment on the shooting here, though I have elsewhere. However, I will comment on comments about the shooting.
Firstly, I very much dislike the instantaneous reactions of people with an agenda. Almost instantly people were saying that the shootings were cause for <Insert Agenda Here>. There were people saying we needed changes in gun control, some more lax, some stricter and all different. There were people saying we needed mental health industry changes. There was Jack Thompson, who declared the whole thing Counter-Strike's fault before we even knew who the shooter was. Incidentally, last reports stated that Cho didn't play video games at all, he wrote dramatic plays.
I'm all for figuring out what went wrong and fixing it, but political grandstanding doesn't help anyone but the people grandstanding. I doubt it even helps them as much as they believe.
The best reaction we can have is that of compassion. Compassion for the survivors, compassion for the dead, and compassion for Cho and everyone like him. He killed 32 people, a terrible act, and left us question how such things could happen. The unfortunate, knee-jerk reaction is to seek out people similar to him and isolate them, ridicule them, and take out our frustration on them. This is the absolute worst thing we can possibly do.
I've been reading a lot about Cho, and the events surrounding the VA Tech shootings. He was made fun of out throughout middle school, high school, and even university. In short, isolated, ridiculed, and transformed into an object for others to vent their frustrations upon. While not the only factor in matters, increasing the level to which we do such things is in no way going to stop such events from reoccurring.
People in Cho's position need, first and foremost, the compassion and friendship of others. Isolating them further only harms the situation further. Demonizing Cho, however angry and vitriolic his diatribe and video clips, does not change what he did or the events that lead him to believe it was his only way out.
My heart goes out to everyone who has suffered because of this event, whether by a gun, the media, or those who would take out their sorrows on the people who need help the most.
I'm not about to comment on the shooting here, though I have elsewhere. However, I will comment on comments about the shooting.
Firstly, I very much dislike the instantaneous reactions of people with an agenda. Almost instantly people were saying that the shootings were cause for <Insert Agenda Here>. There were people saying we needed changes in gun control, some more lax, some stricter and all different. There were people saying we needed mental health industry changes. There was Jack Thompson, who declared the whole thing Counter-Strike's fault before we even knew who the shooter was. Incidentally, last reports stated that Cho didn't play video games at all, he wrote dramatic plays.
I'm all for figuring out what went wrong and fixing it, but political grandstanding doesn't help anyone but the people grandstanding. I doubt it even helps them as much as they believe.
The best reaction we can have is that of compassion. Compassion for the survivors, compassion for the dead, and compassion for Cho and everyone like him. He killed 32 people, a terrible act, and left us question how such things could happen. The unfortunate, knee-jerk reaction is to seek out people similar to him and isolate them, ridicule them, and take out our frustration on them. This is the absolute worst thing we can possibly do.
I've been reading a lot about Cho, and the events surrounding the VA Tech shootings. He was made fun of out throughout middle school, high school, and even university. In short, isolated, ridiculed, and transformed into an object for others to vent their frustrations upon. While not the only factor in matters, increasing the level to which we do such things is in no way going to stop such events from reoccurring.
People in Cho's position need, first and foremost, the compassion and friendship of others. Isolating them further only harms the situation further. Demonizing Cho, however angry and vitriolic his diatribe and video clips, does not change what he did or the events that lead him to believe it was his only way out.
My heart goes out to everyone who has suffered because of this event, whether by a gun, the media, or those who would take out their sorrows on the people who need help the most.
20070328
Of Hedgehogs and Plumbers
Ah, yesteryear. The whims and blissful ignorance of youth. An age when cotton candy was the best reason for going to a theme park, girls had cooties, and Mario and Sonic fought battles to the death in the minds of future geeks, nerds and dorks. Ah, nostalgia.
Theories were always flown express between the battle lines, detailing how and why Mario was better than Sonic, how Sonic was better than Mario, and occaisionally why Luigi or Tails was the more underappreciated sidekick.
Perhaps the news I bring is but the precursor to even greater news, but by the end of the year we can settle at least one question regarding the great video game rivalry of the early 90s. Who would have won the Olympics?
As the universe has not been torn asunder with great rifts in reality, I can only assume that this is a Good Thing (TM). Perhaps this game will finally brook understanding between our Red and Blue brothers and sisters. Or it will give us some measure of opportunity to finally put all those arguments to the test.
This announcement brings with it a great hush. Yes, this game will allow Mario and Sonic to compete. However, there is a greater competition which our eyes draw too. On the horizon is Super Smash Brothers: Brawl, and it promises third party characters to fight with and against. All of nerdom holds its breath, wondering if perhaps we shall soon hear of a greater, less amicable battle to be fought. One where blood shall flow, or at least percentage points.
It will be totally awesome if we see an announcement stating that Sonic will be in Brawl, and this seems ever more likely. Until that is confirmed or denied, we will have this as substitute for our desires to see the age old rivalry played out in violent arenas of destruction, doom, and d-pads.
Theories were always flown express between the battle lines, detailing how and why Mario was better than Sonic, how Sonic was better than Mario, and occaisionally why Luigi or Tails was the more underappreciated sidekick.
Perhaps the news I bring is but the precursor to even greater news, but by the end of the year we can settle at least one question regarding the great video game rivalry of the early 90s. Who would have won the Olympics?
As the universe has not been torn asunder with great rifts in reality, I can only assume that this is a Good Thing (TM). Perhaps this game will finally brook understanding between our Red and Blue brothers and sisters. Or it will give us some measure of opportunity to finally put all those arguments to the test.
This announcement brings with it a great hush. Yes, this game will allow Mario and Sonic to compete. However, there is a greater competition which our eyes draw too. On the horizon is Super Smash Brothers: Brawl, and it promises third party characters to fight with and against. All of nerdom holds its breath, wondering if perhaps we shall soon hear of a greater, less amicable battle to be fought. One where blood shall flow, or at least percentage points.
It will be totally awesome if we see an announcement stating that Sonic will be in Brawl, and this seems ever more likely. Until that is confirmed or denied, we will have this as substitute for our desires to see the age old rivalry played out in violent arenas of destruction, doom, and d-pads.
20070327
Cracking!
Our dear chaps Wallace and Gromit are apparently spearheading a push for invention in Great Britain.
Were I a native, I'd suggest a new form of transportation. A hamsterball you would ride on top of powered by a robotic hamster fueled by giant sunflower seeds. I'd call it the Hamsportation 1200 LX, featuring Sunflower SEED AI.
Were I a native, I'd suggest a new form of transportation. A hamsterball you would ride on top of powered by a robotic hamster fueled by giant sunflower seeds. I'd call it the Hamsportation 1200 LX, featuring Sunflower SEED AI.
Instantly Improved Vision
I have glasses now. It's nice being able to sit on the couch and be able to read the tiny text in my video games. It's also nice being able to read road signs before the point of no return.
It'll take time to get used to having glasses. I don't need to wear them all the time, but just the idea that I am now in the subcategory of nerd with the attribute "wears glasses" is weird.
Anime Glasses Cliches:
1. Pushing glasses up to the bridge of the nose while expounding some insight or intellectual tidbit or otherwise showing mental supiriority.
2. Glasses completely sheen with light indicating a menacing, silent anger and vengeful machinations.
3. A quick flash of light crosses glasses just before an attempt to do something incredibly epic, incredibly overblown, or incredibly likely to be followed up by a swift kick to the nuts by a hot female.
4. Spirals for lenses portraying the "Coke bottle" varietry of eyewear.
It'll take time to get used to having glasses. I don't need to wear them all the time, but just the idea that I am now in the subcategory of nerd with the attribute "wears glasses" is weird.
Anime Glasses Cliches:
1. Pushing glasses up to the bridge of the nose while expounding some insight or intellectual tidbit or otherwise showing mental supiriority.
2. Glasses completely sheen with light indicating a menacing, silent anger and vengeful machinations.
3. A quick flash of light crosses glasses just before an attempt to do something incredibly epic, incredibly overblown, or incredibly likely to be followed up by a swift kick to the nuts by a hot female.
4. Spirals for lenses portraying the "Coke bottle" varietry of eyewear.
20070316
Hai, nihonjin desu. Usojanai!
This afternoon I'm going to be posing as a japanese person in order to download a demo of a game onto my Xbox 360.
It makes some sense to me that there might be reasons for restricting game demos to certain regions (e.g Super Japanese Game, Never Coming to America TM) but in the case of one which is being released in all of 4 days... I'm not so sure.
In any case, there's a demo of Armored Core 4 that's been availible to the japanese for a week now. I'm going to get my hands on it before I leave for Baltimore this Wednesday. In order to do this, I must accomplish the following.
1) Create a silver Xbox Live account using a japanese hotmail address.
2) ???
3) Profit.
The not-so-obscure reference aside, the workaround is pretty simple. Take step one, add downloading the demo. The only difficult part is filling in information that is passably japanese without giving out some random japanese person's phone number. I wonder what my old cell phone number was...
It makes some sense to me that there might be reasons for restricting game demos to certain regions (e.g Super Japanese Game, Never Coming to America TM) but in the case of one which is being released in all of 4 days... I'm not so sure.
In any case, there's a demo of Armored Core 4 that's been availible to the japanese for a week now. I'm going to get my hands on it before I leave for Baltimore this Wednesday. In order to do this, I must accomplish the following.
1) Create a silver Xbox Live account using a japanese hotmail address.
2) ???
3) Profit.
The not-so-obscure reference aside, the workaround is pretty simple. Take step one, add downloading the demo. The only difficult part is filling in information that is passably japanese without giving out some random japanese person's phone number. I wonder what my old cell phone number was...
20070307
Mech it so
Shock, awe, excitement. It's time to endlessly distract my brother with tales of Armored Core 4.... almost.
I don't think I've ever had a game series I enjoyed thoroughly ambush me before, but Armored Core just did. I found out, by accident, that the latest game in the series will be coming out 3 days before my birthday. Needless to say I am entirely psyched, and at the same time disappointed because I'm flying to Baltimore the 21st to visit my sister. Why do they have to release it right when I'm leaving?
Some time ago it was to be a PS3 exclusive, but I was happy to find out that it will also be on the Xbox 360. The previews say that for the most part it's sticking to the good old formula, and in my mind that's all good. This game is probably the epitomy of a hardcore mech title. Piecing together death machines carefully from a wide array of parts, throwing in some weapons of mass destruction, and then wielding the power of your creations has always been highly appealing. This is despite that fact that my brother is my supirior in the design aspect.
So now I have 300 to look forward to in theatres on Friday, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on my birthday, and this sandwiched between.
March loves me.
I don't think I've ever had a game series I enjoyed thoroughly ambush me before, but Armored Core just did. I found out, by accident, that the latest game in the series will be coming out 3 days before my birthday. Needless to say I am entirely psyched, and at the same time disappointed because I'm flying to Baltimore the 21st to visit my sister. Why do they have to release it right when I'm leaving?
Some time ago it was to be a PS3 exclusive, but I was happy to find out that it will also be on the Xbox 360. The previews say that for the most part it's sticking to the good old formula, and in my mind that's all good. This game is probably the epitomy of a hardcore mech title. Piecing together death machines carefully from a wide array of parts, throwing in some weapons of mass destruction, and then wielding the power of your creations has always been highly appealing. This is despite that fact that my brother is my supirior in the design aspect.
So now I have 300 to look forward to in theatres on Friday, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on my birthday, and this sandwiched between.
March loves me.
PS3 Phone Home
This will be brief, I've already bombarded what readers I have with two monolothic rants in the past few days, and I can be reasonably terse about this.
Sony has announced Home, a service meant to simultaneously rival both Xbox Live and Nintendo's Mii Channel. It's an impressive tool, and almost a game unto itself. It has graphics reminiscent of the Sims or Second Life, and features minigames, scenery and other interesting tidbits. There'll be lots of opportunities for those "microtransactions" that the industry loves these days.
My biggest critique of the system is that it missed the point of both Live and the Mii Channel. The power of both is in simple elegance. It is not difficult to use Live, or to use and create Miis. They are designed to be easy and effective. In this way, they can appeal to casual gamers. Home is neither of this things, and seems to offer more complication than simplification. This will definately be great for already established gamers. They've basically been training themselves to be adaptable to new user interfaces starting from when they first played. It's the casual gamers and the non-gamers, the ones who will be increasingly important as the industry moves forward, who won't want to bother.
Is Home bad? Nah. However, it's innovating in the wrong direction.
Sony has announced Home, a service meant to simultaneously rival both Xbox Live and Nintendo's Mii Channel. It's an impressive tool, and almost a game unto itself. It has graphics reminiscent of the Sims or Second Life, and features minigames, scenery and other interesting tidbits. There'll be lots of opportunities for those "microtransactions" that the industry loves these days.
My biggest critique of the system is that it missed the point of both Live and the Mii Channel. The power of both is in simple elegance. It is not difficult to use Live, or to use and create Miis. They are designed to be easy and effective. In this way, they can appeal to casual gamers. Home is neither of this things, and seems to offer more complication than simplification. This will definately be great for already established gamers. They've basically been training themselves to be adaptable to new user interfaces starting from when they first played. It's the casual gamers and the non-gamers, the ones who will be increasingly important as the industry moves forward, who won't want to bother.
Is Home bad? Nah. However, it's innovating in the wrong direction.
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.
20070304
Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring...
... banana phone!
For some time now, I have wished to imbue my nifty cell phone with nerdy and silly ring tones. To this end I scoured the internet attempting to find some method by which my extreme geekiness might be profoundly adapted to my portable communications device. At ever turn I was thwarted by inane policies, monthly subscription fees, and abominations pretending to be faithful renditions of 8-bit classics.
I had all but given up.
Last night I had an epiphany. I encountered a service that sent video game mp3s to your phone, for some stupid price again. However, the transparent nature of what was occuring lead me to conclude one thing, all I had to do was find a way to send an mp3 to my phone. Finding the mp3s that I desired would be no issue, I have such things in great numbers. All I needed was the delivery.
Eureka moment in hand, I immediately found a website which would send my mp3s to my phone at no cost. This tool is so freaking awesome.
It not only works with mp3s, but just about any other commonly used sound file format (such as ogg/vorbis). You can select the starting second, the duration (between 5 and 40 seconds) and more. It has a comprehensive list of all phone models and carriers, and simply is amazing. The only thing it asks is patience, as it cna take up to 72 minutes to send.
You can donate if you like, and doing so allots you some credits you can use to speed up the time it takes to send the files. I'm planning on donating a lot.
Why this altruism? Because quite simply it's the first site with a sane setup for dealing with ringtones, and also the most liberating of any. Every other website was charging some ungodly price for a midi file of the Super Mario Bros theme written by some failing music student who'd obviously ignored video games up until someone paid them $5 to massacre a tune. Some services even required you to start paying before you could even browse to see if they had anything remotely interesting. The whole ringtone thing is the most sinister plot to rob us of money in recent times.
This website lets me take MY mp3s and put them on MY phone! THIS SHOULDN'T BE SO DIFFICULT A CONCEPT. Why is it that so many companies want to make it hard for people to do what they want? It's simply baffling. That I have found a service that enables me to do the simple, obvious thing for no cost only lends credence to the idea that these other sites are the ringtone equivalent of those fake ebay and paypal e-mails. There is absolutely no intent but robbery.
Without further ado, here is the link to the website. I've already tested it and found it worthy. All that remains is to have my phone blurt out "OHNOESITSYOURBROTHERANDHEISCALLINGYOUQUICKPICKUPTHEPHONE
ANDTALKLOUDLYEVENTHOUGHITSGOINGTOMAKEEVERYONEMADORYOUWILL CRASHYOURCARORSOMETHINGOHNOES!" whenever my family calls.
For some time now, I have wished to imbue my nifty cell phone with nerdy and silly ring tones. To this end I scoured the internet attempting to find some method by which my extreme geekiness might be profoundly adapted to my portable communications device. At ever turn I was thwarted by inane policies, monthly subscription fees, and abominations pretending to be faithful renditions of 8-bit classics.
I had all but given up.
Last night I had an epiphany. I encountered a service that sent video game mp3s to your phone, for some stupid price again. However, the transparent nature of what was occuring lead me to conclude one thing, all I had to do was find a way to send an mp3 to my phone. Finding the mp3s that I desired would be no issue, I have such things in great numbers. All I needed was the delivery.
Eureka moment in hand, I immediately found a website which would send my mp3s to my phone at no cost. This tool is so freaking awesome.
It not only works with mp3s, but just about any other commonly used sound file format (such as ogg/vorbis). You can select the starting second, the duration (between 5 and 40 seconds) and more. It has a comprehensive list of all phone models and carriers, and simply is amazing. The only thing it asks is patience, as it cna take up to 72 minutes to send.
You can donate if you like, and doing so allots you some credits you can use to speed up the time it takes to send the files. I'm planning on donating a lot.
Why this altruism? Because quite simply it's the first site with a sane setup for dealing with ringtones, and also the most liberating of any. Every other website was charging some ungodly price for a midi file of the Super Mario Bros theme written by some failing music student who'd obviously ignored video games up until someone paid them $5 to massacre a tune. Some services even required you to start paying before you could even browse to see if they had anything remotely interesting. The whole ringtone thing is the most sinister plot to rob us of money in recent times.
This website lets me take MY mp3s and put them on MY phone! THIS SHOULDN'T BE SO DIFFICULT A CONCEPT. Why is it that so many companies want to make it hard for people to do what they want? It's simply baffling. That I have found a service that enables me to do the simple, obvious thing for no cost only lends credence to the idea that these other sites are the ringtone equivalent of those fake ebay and paypal e-mails. There is absolutely no intent but robbery.
Without further ado, here is the link to the website. I've already tested it and found it worthy. All that remains is to have my phone blurt out "OHNOESITSYOURBROTHERANDHEISCALLINGYOUQUICKPICKUPTHEPHONE
ANDTALKLOUDLYEVENTHOUGHITSGOINGTOMAKEEVERYONEMADORYOUWILL CRASHYOURCARORSOMETHINGOHNOES!" whenever my family calls.
20070221
BOFH
That acronym stands for "Bastard Operator From Hell".
The following links are much funnier if you are A) a nerd and B) have a fairly decent concept of UNIX and its administration. However, these are not necessary.
Also note that I am gullible, and at first believed these things. That was until the "accidents" started.
The first link is the early work, the second link is to the current site of the BOFH.
Archive
More Recent
Enjoy.
The following links are much funnier if you are A) a nerd and B) have a fairly decent concept of UNIX and its administration. However, these are not necessary.
Also note that I am gullible, and at first believed these things. That was until the "accidents" started.
The first link is the early work, the second link is to the current site of the BOFH.
Archive
More Recent
Enjoy.
20070214
"Next-Gen"
This should be short.
For the longest time we've been referring to the Xbox 360, the PS3 and the Wii as "next-gen" systems. The following question is directed at the populace that continues to do so.
Why?
These systems are no longer "next-gen". They are current, they are now. We are no longer awaiting their release, although we may be awaiting an opportunity to get our hands on one. These systems are not being released in 2011.
It irks me on a fundamental level that people STILL, especially journalists, refer to these systems as "next-gen". The Xbox 720, PS4 and Wii Tuu are "next-gen". In fact, the whole "next-gen" term is completely new to the marketing hype surrounding the new generation. That it is still being used is evidence of how it is almost purely a meaningless marketing term.
So quite simply, stop. If you must refer to them as something, "current-gen" or "the new systems" work perfectly well. The systems also have names, proper nouns of a sort, which also have a job they can do. I swear if I read another journalist who uses the term "next-gen" I'm going to wail and gnash teeth.
For the longest time we've been referring to the Xbox 360, the PS3 and the Wii as "next-gen" systems. The following question is directed at the populace that continues to do so.
Why?
These systems are no longer "next-gen". They are current, they are now. We are no longer awaiting their release, although we may be awaiting an opportunity to get our hands on one. These systems are not being released in 2011.
It irks me on a fundamental level that people STILL, especially journalists, refer to these systems as "next-gen". The Xbox 720, PS4 and Wii Tuu are "next-gen". In fact, the whole "next-gen" term is completely new to the marketing hype surrounding the new generation. That it is still being used is evidence of how it is almost purely a meaningless marketing term.
So quite simply, stop. If you must refer to them as something, "current-gen" or "the new systems" work perfectly well. The systems also have names, proper nouns of a sort, which also have a job they can do. I swear if I read another journalist who uses the term "next-gen" I'm going to wail and gnash teeth.
The King is dead, long live the King!
I'm increasingly convinced that there are two paths availible to the previous video game king, Sony.
1) Come to terms with what is right and wrong with the Playstation 3.
2) Die, slowly, pitifully, and without friends.
I'm not going to bother listing the latest of the shenanigans on Sony's part. Penny-Arcade does a good enough job on the most recent offense. If you have the time, read the corresponding news section on the website. It works well as a source for much of the following thought.
Quite simply, the two paths I listed about are what every hardcore gamer MUST hope for. I highlight the word 'must' because it is absolutely imperative to the industry that Sony either realize their wayward ways or die. The alternative is horrific.
Penny-Arcade had an insight that set this off, and it was that right now it is the hardcore who are carrying Sony. Only a hardcore gamer will spend $600 on a PS3, or will have enough motivation to convince their parents to buy one for them. The casual people are interested, but they want to wait and see.
In this crucial time period, Sony is continually alienating the hardcore. Every comment that drips as acrid slime from their mouths spreads like wildfire through the internet and to the ears of the elite gamers, proud of their constant attunement to the latest news on all topics gaming. This is exactly the wrong thing to be doing, and if they succeed despite their arrogance a terrible and destructive message will be sent to those in charge of every company that has a presence in the industry.
Spineless.
In a sense, the hardcore are the ramparts of the gamers. We're the ones who pay attention, the ones who are "in the know". If we roll over for these companies, they will KNOW they can have their way, no matter what. If the hardcore do not resist, how can we expect the casual gamer to be bothered? They do not know that the man in charge of Sony Computer Entertainment of America is in complete denial that there are PS3s unsold in stores. They do not know that the crashing PS3 demo displays are a "feature" rather than a bug. They simply know there is a PS3, and often not even how much it costs.
If Sony survives, but does not amend their ways, it's as good as waiving our rights to decent treatment at the hands of the monolithic companies that drive the industry.
Perhaps I'm simply reacting drastically and without truly deep thought as it is late, but I can not see Sony's survival without reform as a positive influence in the industry. Should they learn, I will welcome them back into the fold with open arms. Should they perish, I will mourn their loss. But should they persist in their rancid words that defy both reality and insult the intelligence of the people they purport to understand, no supplication will be enough to reconcile me to them.
1) Come to terms with what is right and wrong with the Playstation 3.
2) Die, slowly, pitifully, and without friends.
I'm not going to bother listing the latest of the shenanigans on Sony's part. Penny-Arcade does a good enough job on the most recent offense. If you have the time, read the corresponding news section on the website. It works well as a source for much of the following thought.
Quite simply, the two paths I listed about are what every hardcore gamer MUST hope for. I highlight the word 'must' because it is absolutely imperative to the industry that Sony either realize their wayward ways or die. The alternative is horrific.
Penny-Arcade had an insight that set this off, and it was that right now it is the hardcore who are carrying Sony. Only a hardcore gamer will spend $600 on a PS3, or will have enough motivation to convince their parents to buy one for them. The casual people are interested, but they want to wait and see.
In this crucial time period, Sony is continually alienating the hardcore. Every comment that drips as acrid slime from their mouths spreads like wildfire through the internet and to the ears of the elite gamers, proud of their constant attunement to the latest news on all topics gaming. This is exactly the wrong thing to be doing, and if they succeed despite their arrogance a terrible and destructive message will be sent to those in charge of every company that has a presence in the industry.
Spineless.
In a sense, the hardcore are the ramparts of the gamers. We're the ones who pay attention, the ones who are "in the know". If we roll over for these companies, they will KNOW they can have their way, no matter what. If the hardcore do not resist, how can we expect the casual gamer to be bothered? They do not know that the man in charge of Sony Computer Entertainment of America is in complete denial that there are PS3s unsold in stores. They do not know that the crashing PS3 demo displays are a "feature" rather than a bug. They simply know there is a PS3, and often not even how much it costs.
If Sony survives, but does not amend their ways, it's as good as waiving our rights to decent treatment at the hands of the monolithic companies that drive the industry.
Perhaps I'm simply reacting drastically and without truly deep thought as it is late, but I can not see Sony's survival without reform as a positive influence in the industry. Should they learn, I will welcome them back into the fold with open arms. Should they perish, I will mourn their loss. But should they persist in their rancid words that defy both reality and insult the intelligence of the people they purport to understand, no supplication will be enough to reconcile me to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
