Leave it to a nutcase like me to come up with a game about office management of all things.
Seriously, while I was at work I thought to myself, "Hey, an interesting game would be one where you manage a software engineering project from start to finish, assigning engineers to important tasks based on their abilities, ratcheting up pressure through your managers, dealing with unexpected events and failures, and avoiding engineer burnout!"
I think I'm going to go into a corner and sob.
20090625
20090622
Information Ages
My father, in response to my previous entry on Iran, made the insight point that a key difference between his generation and later ones is how we view democracy. His generation, he says, had an idealized notion of democracy, whereas ours is highly cynical and even fatalist regarding government. I have theories as to why this is, and why this is likely to continue for some time.
Take, for instance, the recent insistence of republicans that the current clamp down on Iranian protests and their subsequent use of social networking tools such as twitter is akin to what republicans have been doing during the Obama presidency. Statements such as these represent a fundamental failure to understand the basic functions of how the world works, or at least to put enough effort into ascertaining the facts of a situation to make a clear, level-headed assessment.
It's this latter possibility that highlights the generational gap. How we process and acquire information is fundamentally different. The new generations are growing up in an era where all the information they could possibly need is at their fingertips. In such an era, it's fundamentally baffling as to why any of these responsible, important people are able to so consistently get fundamentally obvious and crucial facts wrong. They may be busy people, but at least their support staff could have looked it up for them, right?
At this point we're experienced enough to know that most often people fail to ascertain the proper facts of a situation when they have a vested interest in a reality that is unaffected by those facts. Whether this is emotional or financial, the interest precludes proper judgement. So, when we see politicians arguing that it isn't the nicotene in cigarettes which causes cancer but the smoke, ignoring the fact that the contentions concerning nicotene have nothing to do with cancer but addiction, we have to wonder whether they're stupid, emotional, or financially tied to organizations who have an interest in the outcome of the legislation.
This is the source of the cynicism and fatalism. We know so much about the world, its people, and its awe inspiring wonder, and yet leading us are buffoons who can't tell the difference between climate change and weather change. We want to be rid of them, but we feel it's futile because there are so few of us compared to the generations that came before who voted these 5-6 term senators and representatives into office year after year.
Of course, our cynicism along doesn't account for the amazingly voter turnout numbers. Even in last year's amazingly heated election, nearly half of all voters never reached the polls. Voter turnout is barely a third of all possible voters in gubernational elections. This all started before I was even born.
I can only explain, in part, why my generation doesn't seem to care. Why most of the country doesn't seem to care except for presidential elections (and in 1996 even then), I can't say.
Take, for instance, the recent insistence of republicans that the current clamp down on Iranian protests and their subsequent use of social networking tools such as twitter is akin to what republicans have been doing during the Obama presidency. Statements such as these represent a fundamental failure to understand the basic functions of how the world works, or at least to put enough effort into ascertaining the facts of a situation to make a clear, level-headed assessment.
It's this latter possibility that highlights the generational gap. How we process and acquire information is fundamentally different. The new generations are growing up in an era where all the information they could possibly need is at their fingertips. In such an era, it's fundamentally baffling as to why any of these responsible, important people are able to so consistently get fundamentally obvious and crucial facts wrong. They may be busy people, but at least their support staff could have looked it up for them, right?
At this point we're experienced enough to know that most often people fail to ascertain the proper facts of a situation when they have a vested interest in a reality that is unaffected by those facts. Whether this is emotional or financial, the interest precludes proper judgement. So, when we see politicians arguing that it isn't the nicotene in cigarettes which causes cancer but the smoke, ignoring the fact that the contentions concerning nicotene have nothing to do with cancer but addiction, we have to wonder whether they're stupid, emotional, or financially tied to organizations who have an interest in the outcome of the legislation.
This is the source of the cynicism and fatalism. We know so much about the world, its people, and its awe inspiring wonder, and yet leading us are buffoons who can't tell the difference between climate change and weather change. We want to be rid of them, but we feel it's futile because there are so few of us compared to the generations that came before who voted these 5-6 term senators and representatives into office year after year.
Of course, our cynicism along doesn't account for the amazingly voter turnout numbers. Even in last year's amazingly heated election, nearly half of all voters never reached the polls. Voter turnout is barely a third of all possible voters in gubernational elections. This all started before I was even born.
I can only explain, in part, why my generation doesn't seem to care. Why most of the country doesn't seem to care except for presidential elections (and in 1996 even then), I can't say.
20090615
On Iran
Iran is currently in a state of chaos. The results of their election, currently being contested under suspicion of fraud, have literally filled the streets with angry protests. There have been clashes with riot police, clashes with loyal supporters of Ahmadinejad, blood, tears, and fires. In short, social uprising.
First and foremost my heart goes out to the people of Iran. The tumult they find themselves in is surely frightening, dangerous and ultimately pivotal in how they may lead their lives over the next decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
Secondly, these events throw numerous others on US shores into sharp contrast. From the Tea Party protests to the anger at AIG and similar institutions responsible for our economic collapse, a new light is clearly shed on their meaning and relevance.
For those of us who bother to keep tabs on the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the Tea Party protests represented a weak, pitiful attempt on the part of the former group to assert they had grass roots support and legitimacy on a level equal to or greater than Obama. The narrative they attempted to convey was that there was growing, angry opposition to Obama's socialist policies that would boil over into a political revolution.
Today we can see what a political revolution looks like, and it is impossible to do so without observing how little resemblence there is to the Tea Party protests. Revolution is infectuous, massive, and immediately garners forceful responses from those who oppose it. There is blood, violence, hope, despair, and most of all chaos. The entire country of Iran worries as to the outcome of these protests, no matter what their affiliation or beliefs.
Looking back as newcasters proclaimed the Tea Party protests a revolution, it seems at best a joke. One can declare a top a carousel because it spins and all that is proven is one's ignorance.
But that ignorance is important because it isn't limited to Fox News, conservatives or Republicans. The American people, as a whole, have forgotten what revolution is after nearly 250 years of independance. We have been so tamed by our freedoms that the idea of simply protesting something seems revolutionary. Consider the following quote:
Jon Stewart touches on an oddity of American politics. For all the vitriol thrown about between parties and sides, however much ire one can draw from friends and coworkers over differing political views, few people put even a modicum of effort into expressing that intense emotion in a concrete fashion.
The massive economic collapse would, one thinks, have easily produced similar, massive demonstrations against the corrupt, disconnected executives who spearheaded our current situation. While we elected a very different president than our previous one, the uprising hasn't happened. Are we naturally more peaceful or naturally more apathetic? I have no special insight here.
Regardless, the American Revolution has long since ended, its memory faded despite frequent invocations. Revolution is not inherently good; the barriers and structures it destroys are not always deserving or necessary. However, it is a truly American quality to cherish and desire revolutionary spirit. One wonders where it has gone.
First and foremost my heart goes out to the people of Iran. The tumult they find themselves in is surely frightening, dangerous and ultimately pivotal in how they may lead their lives over the next decades. My thoughts and prayers go out to them.
Secondly, these events throw numerous others on US shores into sharp contrast. From the Tea Party protests to the anger at AIG and similar institutions responsible for our economic collapse, a new light is clearly shed on their meaning and relevance.
For those of us who bother to keep tabs on the balance between Republicans and Democrats, the Tea Party protests represented a weak, pitiful attempt on the part of the former group to assert they had grass roots support and legitimacy on a level equal to or greater than Obama. The narrative they attempted to convey was that there was growing, angry opposition to Obama's socialist policies that would boil over into a political revolution.
Today we can see what a political revolution looks like, and it is impossible to do so without observing how little resemblence there is to the Tea Party protests. Revolution is infectuous, massive, and immediately garners forceful responses from those who oppose it. There is blood, violence, hope, despair, and most of all chaos. The entire country of Iran worries as to the outcome of these protests, no matter what their affiliation or beliefs.
Looking back as newcasters proclaimed the Tea Party protests a revolution, it seems at best a joke. One can declare a top a carousel because it spins and all that is proven is one's ignorance.
But that ignorance is important because it isn't limited to Fox News, conservatives or Republicans. The American people, as a whole, have forgotten what revolution is after nearly 250 years of independance. We have been so tamed by our freedoms that the idea of simply protesting something seems revolutionary. Consider the following quote:
"You know, you look at other countries, when they get upset they actually go on strike, they have riots. We just kind of send off e-mails in capital letters."
Jon Stewart touches on an oddity of American politics. For all the vitriol thrown about between parties and sides, however much ire one can draw from friends and coworkers over differing political views, few people put even a modicum of effort into expressing that intense emotion in a concrete fashion.
The massive economic collapse would, one thinks, have easily produced similar, massive demonstrations against the corrupt, disconnected executives who spearheaded our current situation. While we elected a very different president than our previous one, the uprising hasn't happened. Are we naturally more peaceful or naturally more apathetic? I have no special insight here.
Regardless, the American Revolution has long since ended, its memory faded despite frequent invocations. Revolution is not inherently good; the barriers and structures it destroys are not always deserving or necessary. However, it is a truly American quality to cherish and desire revolutionary spirit. One wonders where it has gone.
20090507
Post-war Japan
Was the Japanese post-war economic miracle a bad thing, or am I justifiably confused when an article rhetorically suggests that it would be bad to follow that model of recovery?
20090429
100 Dalamations
Oh wait, everyone's supposed to arbitrarily assign a grade to Obama today? I'm going with Pi, on a scale from paper to plastic.
I'm sure after all the reviews are in Metacritic will agree with me.
I'm sure after all the reviews are in Metacritic will agree with me.
20090420
Who wants to Sing?
Susan Boyle is a great singer and now very famous. She is also old and homely.
Everyone and their twin brother has been dissecting her miraculous conversion of an obviously skeptical and even hostile audience into a standing ovation complete with tears of pure bliss. The judges themselves noted this, and seemed chastened by their personal failure to look past the book's cover. The event has been called a real life fable.
I have, however, the unique perspective of having read a week's worth of commentary before watching the video. That hasn't made the video less inspiring or heartwarming, but has tempered my measure of it's after affects. Susan Boyle will no doubt become as famous and lauded as her cited idol. Given the momentum she has picked up, and her obvious skill, it's assured. Unfortunately, the world will still think ugly, awkward people are naturally untalented and should be ignored.
We need another 10 Susan Boyles at least. The good news is that every talent agency and TV show will now be looking for them in order to duplicate the incredible phenomena, and television viewers across the globe will be as well. The bad news is if they find too many everyone will probably get a little tired of ugly people surprising them by actually having talent.
Even with the good news, I don't find myself particularly hopeful. Vogue won't really see their subscriptions or sales drop, ugly newscasters aren't going to crop up, and supermodels aren't going to find themselves starving and out of a job (just starving).
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but Susan Boyle isn't going to singlehandedly change how people think about being ugly anymore than Barack Obama was going to magically fix the economy, the world's opinion of the nation, and all our other problems just by being elected.
Everyone and their twin brother has been dissecting her miraculous conversion of an obviously skeptical and even hostile audience into a standing ovation complete with tears of pure bliss. The judges themselves noted this, and seemed chastened by their personal failure to look past the book's cover. The event has been called a real life fable.
I have, however, the unique perspective of having read a week's worth of commentary before watching the video. That hasn't made the video less inspiring or heartwarming, but has tempered my measure of it's after affects. Susan Boyle will no doubt become as famous and lauded as her cited idol. Given the momentum she has picked up, and her obvious skill, it's assured. Unfortunately, the world will still think ugly, awkward people are naturally untalented and should be ignored.
We need another 10 Susan Boyles at least. The good news is that every talent agency and TV show will now be looking for them in order to duplicate the incredible phenomena, and television viewers across the globe will be as well. The bad news is if they find too many everyone will probably get a little tired of ugly people surprising them by actually having talent.
Even with the good news, I don't find myself particularly hopeful. Vogue won't really see their subscriptions or sales drop, ugly newscasters aren't going to crop up, and supermodels aren't going to find themselves starving and out of a job (just starving).
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but Susan Boyle isn't going to singlehandedly change how people think about being ugly anymore than Barack Obama was going to magically fix the economy, the world's opinion of the nation, and all our other problems just by being elected.
20090415
History Repeating
Demigod is a new PC game in the style of Defense of the Ancients, much like how the famous Tower Defense games are moving beyond their minority status.
I've read a few reviews, all glowing, none of which were able to categorize the genre with any particular ease. "RTS-RPG" was thrown around a fair amount, and I suppose that's fairly accurate. The old genres of gaming are now so interbred that any notion of purity has been long since lost, so it makes sense to label them accordingly.
But the RTS-RPG is not new, however much the reviews may imply it. Demigod is not the first video game outside of the customized maps of Starcraft and Warcraft to explore the genre. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years.
Alright, so Dynasty Warriors is more like an Action-RTS mutt, but really the differences are smaller than you think. In fact, the core difference effectively boils down to how you control your avatar. Do you A) Mash buttons to attack and use special abilities or B) Select targets, auto attack, and hit the odd key for a special? To auto-attack, or not to auto-attack, that is the question.
We could drive down into the minutiae of it, but in the end DotA is Dynasty Warriors with fewer buttons to mash and a different camera angle. This isn't a bad thing, it's just the truth of the RTS-RPG genre.
Incidentally, I plan on trying Demigod. Maybe now that Koei and Tecmo have merged a better Dynasty Warriors may result, but in the meantime I need my massive army slaughtering fix. If all the reviewers are as horribly addicted as they claim, Demigod might just be it.
I've read a few reviews, all glowing, none of which were able to categorize the genre with any particular ease. "RTS-RPG" was thrown around a fair amount, and I suppose that's fairly accurate. The old genres of gaming are now so interbred that any notion of purity has been long since lost, so it makes sense to label them accordingly.
But the RTS-RPG is not new, however much the reviews may imply it. Demigod is not the first video game outside of the customized maps of Starcraft and Warcraft to explore the genre. Dynasty Warriors has been doing it for years.
Alright, so Dynasty Warriors is more like an Action-RTS mutt, but really the differences are smaller than you think. In fact, the core difference effectively boils down to how you control your avatar. Do you A) Mash buttons to attack and use special abilities or B) Select targets, auto attack, and hit the odd key for a special? To auto-attack, or not to auto-attack, that is the question.
We could drive down into the minutiae of it, but in the end DotA is Dynasty Warriors with fewer buttons to mash and a different camera angle. This isn't a bad thing, it's just the truth of the RTS-RPG genre.
Incidentally, I plan on trying Demigod. Maybe now that Koei and Tecmo have merged a better Dynasty Warriors may result, but in the meantime I need my massive army slaughtering fix. If all the reviewers are as horribly addicted as they claim, Demigod might just be it.
Earl Grey, Not
I will begin by stating that the fundamental right of protest is not commutable, and am glad that the many people gathering today will be able to do so without fear of government reprisal. It is great to live in a country where such events can happen without people losing their jobs and/or lives because of their participation. I will continue by saying that I am nonetheless confounded by the odd schisms between the reasons for today's protest, the revolution, and reality.
The "Tea Party" demonstrations being held across the nation attempt to recall that first, pivotal prelude to the revolution. Unfortunately, nothing about the protest is remotely connected to the motives and atmosphere present in 1776. A cursory examination of the wikipedia article on the original event is more than enough to reveal the disparity,
The Boston Tea Party was not a protest of high taxes, or of taxes themselves. Rather, thousands of pounds of tea were dumped in the bay because of the old creed "no taxation without representation". The colonists weren't angry they were being taxed, they were angry that Parliament was making decisions concerning the colonies without allowing them to participate. Taxes were merely the most common, obvious way in which the government asserted its authority over the colonies.
Today's "Tea Parties" are protesting Obama's economic recovery plans. The basic talking points assert that he is only increasing the budget deficit (and thus the national debt), increasing spending, and increasing government size and authority. On the tax front the talking points assert that the Cap and Trade taxes, oil and gas taxes, and tobacco taxes will affect low income voters more than high income voters. Taxes are involved, but there's no lack of representation at work and thus the oddly common assertions that "this is what 1766 felt like" are off the mark.
However, the talking points are lost in the sea of posters, images and videos. The vast majority have little to do with any of the issues cited above, and instead focus on socialism, fascism, assertions of the Christian nature of the nation and attacks on Obama's character. Many posters claim that higher taxes have already cost them, despite the fact that the only economic recovery measures passed thus far have lowered taxes for all but a wealthy minority of Americans.
The sad, depressing truth is that these protests have become little more than an outlet for frustrated right wing supporters. The intelligent arguments that should, in fact must be made for the sake of the nation are being drowned in a sea of blind vitriol. What was already a somewhat incongruous use of the "Tea Party" concept instead drags that hallowed (arguably too much so) event through the mud. This is a shame; today could have been a landmark moment of revival and rebirth, one we very much need for our government to remain balanced.
The "Tea Party" demonstrations being held across the nation attempt to recall that first, pivotal prelude to the revolution. Unfortunately, nothing about the protest is remotely connected to the motives and atmosphere present in 1776. A cursory examination of the wikipedia article on the original event is more than enough to reveal the disparity,
The Boston Tea Party was not a protest of high taxes, or of taxes themselves. Rather, thousands of pounds of tea were dumped in the bay because of the old creed "no taxation without representation". The colonists weren't angry they were being taxed, they were angry that Parliament was making decisions concerning the colonies without allowing them to participate. Taxes were merely the most common, obvious way in which the government asserted its authority over the colonies.
Today's "Tea Parties" are protesting Obama's economic recovery plans. The basic talking points assert that he is only increasing the budget deficit (and thus the national debt), increasing spending, and increasing government size and authority. On the tax front the talking points assert that the Cap and Trade taxes, oil and gas taxes, and tobacco taxes will affect low income voters more than high income voters. Taxes are involved, but there's no lack of representation at work and thus the oddly common assertions that "this is what 1766 felt like" are off the mark.
However, the talking points are lost in the sea of posters, images and videos. The vast majority have little to do with any of the issues cited above, and instead focus on socialism, fascism, assertions of the Christian nature of the nation and attacks on Obama's character. Many posters claim that higher taxes have already cost them, despite the fact that the only economic recovery measures passed thus far have lowered taxes for all but a wealthy minority of Americans.
The sad, depressing truth is that these protests have become little more than an outlet for frustrated right wing supporters. The intelligent arguments that should, in fact must be made for the sake of the nation are being drowned in a sea of blind vitriol. What was already a somewhat incongruous use of the "Tea Party" concept instead drags that hallowed (arguably too much so) event through the mud. This is a shame; today could have been a landmark moment of revival and rebirth, one we very much need for our government to remain balanced.
20090409
Logical Connections
Recently a friend of mine told me that the most normal looking pictures he has of me all feature me engrossed in video games. By his account, my "Strange" is less obvious at these times. While not under the influence of the Matrix, I'm an oddball of sorts.
Despite my apparent irrationality, as exhibited by the roles "Crazy Uncle", "Irrepressible Nutjob" and others, I am very fond of logic. When evaluating circumstances, situations and problems I like to believe that my methods are logical and sound, even if the results, while logical, are not optimal. If I can spend Saturday in my pajamas, I don't really need to do my laundry just yet.
The problem with thinking logically is that you invariably run face first into the fact that human society is not in any way, shape or form. Logically, $19.95 is little different from $20. Logically, turn signals increase one's personal safety by alerting other drivers to your intended actions and should be used as often as possible. Logically, one effect may have a number of causes, and the presence of the effect does not specifically prove the presence of any particular one of them.
Of course, it's statistically proven that products sold at one to five cents less than whole dollar amounts sell better to a degree that isn't logical. Turn signals are often regarded as a mistake that might let the other bastard cut you off. Consequents are affirmed daily. Overall, irrationality is commonplace, and trying to think about the world logically is often fruitless.
I say all this now because I often forget this obvious fact, and repeat the "face, meet wall" experience on a regular basis. The most recent occurence of this involved my asserting only if P then Q, followed later by Q, only to be asked if P had ever happened. This happens often and I'm always struck by how obvious it should be, only to remember that I'm equally if not moreso oblivious in other fields.
Despite my apparent irrationality, as exhibited by the roles "Crazy Uncle", "Irrepressible Nutjob" and others, I am very fond of logic. When evaluating circumstances, situations and problems I like to believe that my methods are logical and sound, even if the results, while logical, are not optimal. If I can spend Saturday in my pajamas, I don't really need to do my laundry just yet.
The problem with thinking logically is that you invariably run face first into the fact that human society is not in any way, shape or form. Logically, $19.95 is little different from $20. Logically, turn signals increase one's personal safety by alerting other drivers to your intended actions and should be used as often as possible. Logically, one effect may have a number of causes, and the presence of the effect does not specifically prove the presence of any particular one of them.
Of course, it's statistically proven that products sold at one to five cents less than whole dollar amounts sell better to a degree that isn't logical. Turn signals are often regarded as a mistake that might let the other bastard cut you off. Consequents are affirmed daily. Overall, irrationality is commonplace, and trying to think about the world logically is often fruitless.
I say all this now because I often forget this obvious fact, and repeat the "face, meet wall" experience on a regular basis. The most recent occurence of this involved my asserting only if P then Q, followed later by Q, only to be asked if P had ever happened. This happens often and I'm always struck by how obvious it should be, only to remember that I'm equally if not moreso oblivious in other fields.
20090406
Grammar: It may save your life
People on the internet scoff at those of us who hold ourselves to a higher standard. Spelling? Punctuation? What are they? Quality control is a lie designed to arbitrarily block your insightful and important thoughts from leaving your head the moment they are formed.
What these grammar skeptics do not realize is that their laziness may cost them their lives. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the Bible!
Judges 12:6
As you can see, one man's failing resulted in forty-two thousand deaths. This isn't a "God kills a kitten" scenario, this is a "God kills you, your family, your friends, their friends, that chick or hunk who was totally into you, and everyone's pets" scenario.
I estimate it will only take 2 million grammar lazy people to wipe out the earth's entire population. Please, think of the humans.
What these grammar skeptics do not realize is that their laziness may cost them their lives. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the Bible!
Judges 12:6
...they said, "All right, say 'Shibboleth.' " He said, "Sibboleth," because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time.
As you can see, one man's failing resulted in forty-two thousand deaths. This isn't a "God kills a kitten" scenario, this is a "God kills you, your family, your friends, their friends, that chick or hunk who was totally into you, and everyone's pets" scenario.
I estimate it will only take 2 million grammar lazy people to wipe out the earth's entire population. Please, think of the humans.
20090403
Bad Game Designs: Rewards*
*Rewards are not guaranteed to actually reward, and may in fact turn you into a zombie, destroy your prize heirlooms, eat your soul, or otherwise act as the opposite of a reward.
When a player accomplishes something, whether it be a quest, a level, or a tricky puzzle it is natural to reward their success with a prize or acknowledgment of some sort. This isn't always necessary, but often adds to the experience.
No one would argue that one should penalize a player for succeeding.
Despite this, I recently encountered a game which did exactly that. Upon reaching level 8 in Runes of Magic I was awarded an item which would upgrade my weapon. In fact, I was lovingly gifted an entire stack of this item, promising the potential for a sizable increase in my character's potential. The fine print did note that "there is a chance of failure which may downgrade the weapon", but any reasonable person would understand based on such wording that the chance of failure was small, and the chance of a downgrade even smaller.
Woe.
The stack, ten in all, resulted in one upgrade and nine failures. The very first failure removed all the good the upgrade had done, and the second removed the intrinsic good my weapon already had. If you're trying to encourage people to explore and enjoy new and interesting game features, such a mechanic is a dismal failure.
If I wanted to take one step forwards and two steps backward, I'd go play Ninja Gaiden on Master Ninja mode and stab myself after each death.
When a player accomplishes something, whether it be a quest, a level, or a tricky puzzle it is natural to reward their success with a prize or acknowledgment of some sort. This isn't always necessary, but often adds to the experience.
No one would argue that one should penalize a player for succeeding.
Despite this, I recently encountered a game which did exactly that. Upon reaching level 8 in Runes of Magic I was awarded an item which would upgrade my weapon. In fact, I was lovingly gifted an entire stack of this item, promising the potential for a sizable increase in my character's potential. The fine print did note that "there is a chance of failure which may downgrade the weapon", but any reasonable person would understand based on such wording that the chance of failure was small, and the chance of a downgrade even smaller.
Woe.
The stack, ten in all, resulted in one upgrade and nine failures. The very first failure removed all the good the upgrade had done, and the second removed the intrinsic good my weapon already had. If you're trying to encourage people to explore and enjoy new and interesting game features, such a mechanic is a dismal failure.
If I wanted to take one step forwards and two steps backward, I'd go play Ninja Gaiden on Master Ninja mode and stab myself after each death.
20090401
Oops?
So the Justice Department has been held in contempt of court for withholding evidence from Ted Stevens' defense team. His case is being dismissed without retrial.
Even if he was a horribly inept, pork laden relic, the usurpation of due process and fairness is never warranted. He'd probably still be a senator if this had been done properly.
Food for thought.
Even if he was a horribly inept, pork laden relic, the usurpation of due process and fairness is never warranted. He'd probably still be a senator if this had been done properly.
Food for thought.
20090330
Gaming Taxonomy
As philosophical and analytical as I am, I must utterly cede all pretense of expertise to this incredible analysis of gamer motivations.
"Meandering Mind" suitably describes my jumbled, rambling thought processes. With enough discipline I might one day be able to mimic the precision displayed in the linked article, and perhaps I will make it a future goal. In the meantime, that blog has instantly become on of my favorite reads. If you are anything like me, you will enjoy it as well.
"Meandering Mind" suitably describes my jumbled, rambling thought processes. With enough discipline I might one day be able to mimic the precision displayed in the linked article, and perhaps I will make it a future goal. In the meantime, that blog has instantly become on of my favorite reads. If you are anything like me, you will enjoy it as well.
20090326
Media Rare
There is good news and bad news today. I like good news a lot more than bad news, but I like bad news more than what qualifies as "news" on television these days.
The good news is that our President is on the job. He have a very nice interview to 60 minutes covering the vast scope of all the crises our country currently faces, showing exceptional resilience in the face of incredible obstacles. He also fielded an interesting online forum today, even answering questions a typical politician might deem unseemly. It's good to have a president that's willing to get his hands dirty.
The bad news is the "news" didn't really care about that, and instead got all riled up that Obama laughed once during his interview with 60 minutes. You can get the whole story on that here.
The key here is less that the media blew something out of proportion, but more that they ignored important issues by doing so. This isn't an isolated incident, but a daily, even hourly occurrence. Quite simply, the 24-hour news networks are to insightful coverage what Trivial Pursuit is to a dissertation on the transformation of the nation's zeitgeist. CNN, NBC and FOX are great at provoking and expounding meaningless trivia, but are not thought-provoking or informative.
This is not only a shame, but harmful. Given 40 minutes of interview to pour over, discuss, critique, and grapple with these networks decided that a few seconds of rueful laughter were more newsworthy. I ask a simple question, "How does this help or inform the public?" The trick is that from the perspective of the networks I asked the wrong question. Their version of the question would be, "Does this entertain the public?" The public doesn't want to be informed, they posit, they want to be entertained. Thinking thus, the networks have evolved themselves into a faux-respectable televised tabloid.
While I can't claim I'd watch 24 hours of Jim Lehrer's News Hour, it would do the country good if such a channel came to replace these worthless husks.
The good news is that our President is on the job. He have a very nice interview to 60 minutes covering the vast scope of all the crises our country currently faces, showing exceptional resilience in the face of incredible obstacles. He also fielded an interesting online forum today, even answering questions a typical politician might deem unseemly. It's good to have a president that's willing to get his hands dirty.
The bad news is the "news" didn't really care about that, and instead got all riled up that Obama laughed once during his interview with 60 minutes. You can get the whole story on that here.
The key here is less that the media blew something out of proportion, but more that they ignored important issues by doing so. This isn't an isolated incident, but a daily, even hourly occurrence. Quite simply, the 24-hour news networks are to insightful coverage what Trivial Pursuit is to a dissertation on the transformation of the nation's zeitgeist. CNN, NBC and FOX are great at provoking and expounding meaningless trivia, but are not thought-provoking or informative.
This is not only a shame, but harmful. Given 40 minutes of interview to pour over, discuss, critique, and grapple with these networks decided that a few seconds of rueful laughter were more newsworthy. I ask a simple question, "How does this help or inform the public?" The trick is that from the perspective of the networks I asked the wrong question. Their version of the question would be, "Does this entertain the public?" The public doesn't want to be informed, they posit, they want to be entertained. Thinking thus, the networks have evolved themselves into a faux-respectable televised tabloid.
While I can't claim I'd watch 24 hours of Jim Lehrer's News Hour, it would do the country good if such a channel came to replace these worthless husks.
20090323
Surprising
I went to see Watchmen today. This is not surprising, except maybe that it took so long for me to do so. It was a good movie, also not surprising. In fact, I'd call the movie almost perfect, the issues so tiny and minute they can hardly be said to have occurred at all.
The conversation that the usher had with the couple behind me wasn't surprising either. Apparently some people bring their kids to R rated movies (if you didn't know this, you missed the 80s and 90s), some people also leave movies halfway through due to explicit sex scenes, and if you make a Venn diagram the two have significant overlap.
The surprising moment came immediately after the very explicit sex scene in the movie, and bloomed fully once the movie ended. It's not the scene itself that was surprising or anything that came before it, but rather that parents waited until that moment to decide to leave.
It's not that there are sex scenes beforehand, but that there are scenes of such horrific violence I would pause before I let someone in college watch them. In fact, I can think of many college friends who would be shocked at and cross with me were I to subject them to such barbarity. Many of those moments were truly gruesome.
It is, I think, indicative of the state of our culture that a bloodstain on the ceiling including a dangling, half-exploded arm followed immediately by scenes of women showered in blood doesn't warrant a quick exit for the sake of the children, but a couple of people engaging in an activity practiced by offendees themselves (I mean, they do have kids) is somehow worthy of their ire. It's nonsense.
I'm not advocating Japanese-like acceptance of sexual deviancy, but I am saying that we have our priorities utterly backwards. Everyone should recoil violently when someone is brutally murdered, not just during sex.
The conversation that the usher had with the couple behind me wasn't surprising either. Apparently some people bring their kids to R rated movies (if you didn't know this, you missed the 80s and 90s), some people also leave movies halfway through due to explicit sex scenes, and if you make a Venn diagram the two have significant overlap.
The surprising moment came immediately after the very explicit sex scene in the movie, and bloomed fully once the movie ended. It's not the scene itself that was surprising or anything that came before it, but rather that parents waited until that moment to decide to leave.
It's not that there are sex scenes beforehand, but that there are scenes of such horrific violence I would pause before I let someone in college watch them. In fact, I can think of many college friends who would be shocked at and cross with me were I to subject them to such barbarity. Many of those moments were truly gruesome.
It is, I think, indicative of the state of our culture that a bloodstain on the ceiling including a dangling, half-exploded arm followed immediately by scenes of women showered in blood doesn't warrant a quick exit for the sake of the children, but a couple of people engaging in an activity practiced by offendees themselves (I mean, they do have kids) is somehow worthy of their ire. It's nonsense.
I'm not advocating Japanese-like acceptance of sexual deviancy, but I am saying that we have our priorities utterly backwards. Everyone should recoil violently when someone is brutally murdered, not just during sex.
20090319
Like the Scent of Fresh Lemon.. you see.
I gave Cramer too much credit apparently.
When asked yesterday if Stewart had a point to his criticism, Cramer responded thus:
Right, where have I head this one before...
Cramer's argument childishly assumes that because he is receiving blame this precludes anyone else from taking their rightful fall. Were such an assumption true it would indeed call into question whether we were going after the correct person or institution. Thankfully it is not.
I had high hopes that Cramer was intent on actual reform, but they are now dashed upon the rocks. Neither he nor NBC seem interested in their faults or the correction thereof. This is, again, a shame and ill omen of our times.
When asked yesterday if Stewart had a point to his criticism, Cramer responded thus:
Cramer ... called it "a naive and misleading thing to attack the media."
"We weren't behind this. CNBC, in particular, has been out front on this," he argued. "I think there are people who bear so much more responsibility [than the media] that it's just wrong-headed -- the politicians, the regulators, the SEC, the lenders, the investment banks. ... It's just a naive focus, it really is Meredith."
Right, where have I head this one before...
Dad: You shouldn't have pulled up mom's plants.
Me: But it was her idea, and she pulled up more!
Cramer's argument childishly assumes that because he is receiving blame this precludes anyone else from taking their rightful fall. Were such an assumption true it would indeed call into question whether we were going after the correct person or institution. Thankfully it is not.
I had high hopes that Cramer was intent on actual reform, but they are now dashed upon the rocks. Neither he nor NBC seem interested in their faults or the correction thereof. This is, again, a shame and ill omen of our times.
20090318
Ah, the Days of my Youth
I'm going to quote two paragraphs from a Huffington Post article which includes a response from NBC's chief executive Jeff Zuker to Jon Stewart's interview of Jim Cramer. I am then going to point out something incredibly obvious.
Quote:
Funny, I have encountered this form of reprimand and rebuttal before. I think it went something like this:
It is irrefutable that I did not knock over her dolls (on that particular occasion). It is also a terrible defense when the alleged crime is trespassing.
I highly doubt Jeff Zucker watched the clash between his subordinate and some comedian. If he did, he obviously didn't understand the signifigance of the event. Pervading his response is this assumption that this was standard media outlet finger pointing, lacking any nuance or discernment beyond "blame X for the problem of the week/month/year/decade". The disconnect is blisteringly obvious from the two quoted paragraphs.
It's a shame, as Stewart's plea was so genuine and concerned. CNBC and similar networks could have mitigated in some notable way the impact of the current crisis, but instead lined up and drank the koolaid. They can still change and be helpful to the public, but rather than listen it's all blown off. However terrible Jim Cramer's advice has been, he at least has the guts to answer for it, admit he was at fault, and accept that change is in order. He deserves that much credit.
Quote:
Stewart has had strong words for CNBC on his Comedy Central show, arguing that journalists who cover Wall Street should have done more to warn of the financial meltdown through critical reporting, instead of acting like market cheerleaders.
Zucker said while interviewed on a stage by BusinessWeek that while "everyone wants to find a scapegoat," to suggest that the business media or CNBC was responsible for the economic meltdown is "absurd."
Funny, I have encountered this form of reprimand and rebuttal before. I think it went something like this:
Dad: You are not allowed to enter your sister's room without her permission.
Me: But I wasn't the one who knocked over all of her dolls!
It is irrefutable that I did not knock over her dolls (on that particular occasion). It is also a terrible defense when the alleged crime is trespassing.
I highly doubt Jeff Zucker watched the clash between his subordinate and some comedian. If he did, he obviously didn't understand the signifigance of the event. Pervading his response is this assumption that this was standard media outlet finger pointing, lacking any nuance or discernment beyond "blame X for the problem of the week/month/year/decade". The disconnect is blisteringly obvious from the two quoted paragraphs.
It's a shame, as Stewart's plea was so genuine and concerned. CNBC and similar networks could have mitigated in some notable way the impact of the current crisis, but instead lined up and drank the koolaid. They can still change and be helpful to the public, but rather than listen it's all blown off. However terrible Jim Cramer's advice has been, he at least has the guts to answer for it, admit he was at fault, and accept that change is in order. He deserves that much credit.
Wakanai
There are several elements of this recession that bother me. This discomfort and irritation stems from the lack of understanding I have regarding them. They don't make sense to me, and I don't see why they should make sense to anyone.
The first is AIG. They'll be paying out $165 million in bonuses to 370 people who are largely responsible for tanking the company. Now that seems unthinkable, idiotic, and stupid but hold your judgement. They're only paying the bonuses because they are contractually obligated to. Wait, what?
For the common worker, a bonus is something they get when they work hard and deliver for the company above and beyond the call of duty. It's an optional reward, usually tied to a specific, tight deadline or milestone. The average office worker is never guaranteed a bonus, they have to sweat for them. That's the whole point of bonuses, excel and you can reap the benefits. It's a pat on the back for a job well done, a reminder that companies value those who put in their best effort.
What in the name of sanity was AIG's HR department thinking when they made "bonuses" a contractual obligation. How can you even call it a bonus? I don't understand how that works or makes sense. It defeats the entire purpose and concept to award people who seriously fubar'd the company and economy such lofty sums.
The second confusion is short selling. I want to make sure I have this concept down. You borrow someone else's stock, which you don't actually own, and sell it. Then you rebuy it at a later date and give it back to them. You're betting the stock will drop, so that when you rebuy the price will be less than it was when you sold.
First issue: Whose stock are you borrowing? I want to know, because the idea that some creep can use my stock for such things is terribly upsetting. I can't walk into someone's house and sell their antiques, promising to buy them back later. It doesn't work that way.
Second issue: Doesn't this create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? Say Mr. Financial Guru suggests short selling stock A. A whole crapton of people follow his suggestion and low and behold the stock drops. Tadah, short sellers make money, while whoever was actually holding on to the stock loses.
The financial markets are seriously whack. Seriously.
The first is AIG. They'll be paying out $165 million in bonuses to 370 people who are largely responsible for tanking the company. Now that seems unthinkable, idiotic, and stupid but hold your judgement. They're only paying the bonuses because they are contractually obligated to. Wait, what?
For the common worker, a bonus is something they get when they work hard and deliver for the company above and beyond the call of duty. It's an optional reward, usually tied to a specific, tight deadline or milestone. The average office worker is never guaranteed a bonus, they have to sweat for them. That's the whole point of bonuses, excel and you can reap the benefits. It's a pat on the back for a job well done, a reminder that companies value those who put in their best effort.
What in the name of sanity was AIG's HR department thinking when they made "bonuses" a contractual obligation. How can you even call it a bonus? I don't understand how that works or makes sense. It defeats the entire purpose and concept to award people who seriously fubar'd the company and economy such lofty sums.
The second confusion is short selling. I want to make sure I have this concept down. You borrow someone else's stock, which you don't actually own, and sell it. Then you rebuy it at a later date and give it back to them. You're betting the stock will drop, so that when you rebuy the price will be less than it was when you sold.
First issue: Whose stock are you borrowing? I want to know, because the idea that some creep can use my stock for such things is terribly upsetting. I can't walk into someone's house and sell their antiques, promising to buy them back later. It doesn't work that way.
Second issue: Doesn't this create a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? Say Mr. Financial Guru suggests short selling stock A. A whole crapton of people follow his suggestion and low and behold the stock drops. Tadah, short sellers make money, while whoever was actually holding on to the stock loses.
The financial markets are seriously whack. Seriously.
20090316
On Journalism, Again
CNN recently noted that Jon Stewart might be the next Edward R. Murrow following the comedian's extremely precise dissection of Jim Cramer and the financial branch of the media in general. This is a dark day for journalism.
I ask, why are we relying on a comedian to fill the crucial role Murrow played? This is not to suggest that Stewart is incapable, but that it is ridiculous to think no journalists have the capacity. There is at least one journalist capable of Stewart's feats, as seen at Slacktivist, yet we live in a society where public media outlets cede credibility to networks featuring puppets making crank phone calls.
CNN also ineffectually complained that they exposed Cramer first back in October. I say ineffectually for two reasons. First, nobody noticed. Second, if you go to CNN.com's own website to their topic page "Jim Cramer" there is a single article from October which only mentions him once, in passing. The closest equivalent I could find to a takedown was an article on Chrysler mentioning Cramer's recent prognostication of automotive doomed while briefly criticizing him for the frequency and accuracy of his pronouncements. The article quickly returned to topic.
These points are especially illuminating. The media outlets are perfectly capable of making a story, any story, noticeable and important. We've had much ado about many nothings over the years and CNN's supposed takedown of Cramer could easily have been much ado about something. That it did not receive much notice is indicative of how important CNN itself considered the story, clearly seconded by the fact that you can't even find the story.
The difference in urgency is astounding. Jon Stewart felt this task was so important that he not only brought Jim Cramer onto his show, but went so far overtime with the interview that sections had to be cut from live broadcast. Rather than lose those sections, the full interview was made available to the public on the internet with references to previous episodes on the topic.
The power of the interview itself isn't only in the lack of kid gloves, the explicitness of the hypocrisy encapsulated in video clips of Cramer's own words, or Stewart's sagaciousness. What makes the interview authentic is the clarity of Stewart's goal, not damnation but redemption, not vengeance but reconciliation. It is true that a one sentence summary of Stewart's message would necessarily begin with "You screwed up", but the humble, hopeful admission and conclusion that follows is "and we need you."
That essential quality Stewart displayed in the interview, and his legendary appearance on CNN's own Crossfire, is completely lost upon those involved in CNN's discussion of the confrontation. They recognize neither that he spoke truth to power, nor that he spoke truth to self, but only that something newsworthy occurred and it garnered more attention than their own attempts in the same field.
It is impossible to say without the source itself, but I strongly suspect that CNN's takedown was an overprocessed, empty calorie blurb on the subject, diluted by the typical media outlet aversion to critiquing other media outlets. At best there or four people, none of whom would have been Cramer, might have discussed the hypocrisy or foolishness for five minutes. Were that the case, maybe CNN will take note that talking about someone behind their back is generally only interesting to the people doing the talking.
In any case, as grateful as I am to Jon Stewart for doing the job of CNN/NBC/CBS/FOX etc. for them, I am dismayed at the ill omen this event signifies.
I ask, why are we relying on a comedian to fill the crucial role Murrow played? This is not to suggest that Stewart is incapable, but that it is ridiculous to think no journalists have the capacity. There is at least one journalist capable of Stewart's feats, as seen at Slacktivist, yet we live in a society where public media outlets cede credibility to networks featuring puppets making crank phone calls.
CNN also ineffectually complained that they exposed Cramer first back in October. I say ineffectually for two reasons. First, nobody noticed. Second, if you go to CNN.com's own website to their topic page "Jim Cramer" there is a single article from October which only mentions him once, in passing. The closest equivalent I could find to a takedown was an article on Chrysler mentioning Cramer's recent prognostication of automotive doomed while briefly criticizing him for the frequency and accuracy of his pronouncements. The article quickly returned to topic.
These points are especially illuminating. The media outlets are perfectly capable of making a story, any story, noticeable and important. We've had much ado about many nothings over the years and CNN's supposed takedown of Cramer could easily have been much ado about something. That it did not receive much notice is indicative of how important CNN itself considered the story, clearly seconded by the fact that you can't even find the story.
The difference in urgency is astounding. Jon Stewart felt this task was so important that he not only brought Jim Cramer onto his show, but went so far overtime with the interview that sections had to be cut from live broadcast. Rather than lose those sections, the full interview was made available to the public on the internet with references to previous episodes on the topic.
The power of the interview itself isn't only in the lack of kid gloves, the explicitness of the hypocrisy encapsulated in video clips of Cramer's own words, or Stewart's sagaciousness. What makes the interview authentic is the clarity of Stewart's goal, not damnation but redemption, not vengeance but reconciliation. It is true that a one sentence summary of Stewart's message would necessarily begin with "You screwed up", but the humble, hopeful admission and conclusion that follows is "and we need you."
That essential quality Stewart displayed in the interview, and his legendary appearance on CNN's own Crossfire, is completely lost upon those involved in CNN's discussion of the confrontation. They recognize neither that he spoke truth to power, nor that he spoke truth to self, but only that something newsworthy occurred and it garnered more attention than their own attempts in the same field.
It is impossible to say without the source itself, but I strongly suspect that CNN's takedown was an overprocessed, empty calorie blurb on the subject, diluted by the typical media outlet aversion to critiquing other media outlets. At best there or four people, none of whom would have been Cramer, might have discussed the hypocrisy or foolishness for five minutes. Were that the case, maybe CNN will take note that talking about someone behind their back is generally only interesting to the people doing the talking.
In any case, as grateful as I am to Jon Stewart for doing the job of CNN/NBC/CBS/FOX etc. for them, I am dismayed at the ill omen this event signifies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
