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.

Alrof Loisp

I feel witty. Oh so witty.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

On Journalism

It is a dark day for journalism when one of the White House Press Core refers to an interview conducted by comedian Jon Stewart as "serious journalism". Not because it isn't true, but because it is.

Verbage

Strange beast engineer,
words they do not understand,
"verbalize".

Work

Work a single day,
the hours greater than one hand,
then comes peace.

Infancy and Pioneering

Those who know me are well aware that I love waxing nostalgic about anything and everything. Being so proficient, I recognize that in 99.9% of cases doing so accomplishes nothing but to idealistically color one's perception of past events and thus unintentionally skew one's measures of current times. The practice remains enjoyable, widespread, and just as flawed as ever.

As an example, on a semi-frequent basis one can find blog entries, comments and forum threads remembering the Good Ol' Days (TM) of World of Warcraft. The general themes of such posts lament of loss of said days, citing a "men were real men" paradigm and how ridiculously easy the game has since become. In conclusion, all said posts wish for the return of some particular element from the bygone era; the consensus is that through years of patches and improvements Blizzard has watered down the various elements such that the game, while being technically better, has been diminished. Logical, but flawed.

Overlooked in these throwbacks to the "Golden Age" is an understanding of social elements, how they were influenced by the old game mechanics, and how they have evolved. Blizzard's technical changes are a near zero factor in this matter. The cause, source, and mechanism for the watering down of the game are all the same, the players themselves. The changes that watered down the game were cultural changes.

This is actually a story common to all video games with a competitive element. At the dawn and infancy of a game all players are effectively equal and without advantage. During this period many "fruitless" activities are pursued because in the purity of the times they are fun and unspoiled.

However, over time pioneers naturally begin to learn the ins and outs of the game and take advantage. While initially small, the power conferred by this knowledge becomes impossible to ignore by the other players. The knowledge of the pioneers is spread to the rest of the population in a self-correcting attempt to return to the days of equal skill and opportunity, but the Good Ol' Days of innocence have ended.

From that day forward the culture becomes inevitably focused upon optimization and anticipation. Whether or not the game changes the pioneers continue their work, discovering new knowledge and taking advantage from it. The game becomes an arms race of sorts, who can acquire knowledge first and milk the advantage for all it's worth before everyone else catches on? Equilibrium is effectively lost forever.

What the nostalgic long for (though they often fail to realize) is not a return to the mechanics of the old era, but to the culture born out of innocence of those (or any) mechanics. Such a culture allows players to excel or remain contentedly average if they wish with no stigmas or negative repercussions.

Unfortunately, this is an impossible wish; innocence lost is lost forever. Like Dallben the culture is irrevocably changed, and with it the players.

Even when Blizzard releases a new game in the genre, or some other company produces a suitable offering, the mindset and skills that the players will bring have already changed. Though I may try to revel in the innocent exploration of a new game or new content, I am forever bound now to instinctually seek the optimal path and quickest advantage. I can no more change this than I can return to the playful oblivious youth I once was.

As joyous as those days of infancy were, nostalgia dangerously makes one see the worst in the current era. The rewards for exploring wisdom are bittersweet, but worth the toil.

Zoom Zoom

http://www.zoomquilt.org/

Some things are just cool.

I'm with FDR.

I'm going to summarize my opinion on the stimulus bill, the wrangling, the goal of bipartisanship, the criticism of the Republicans, the criticism of Obama, the editorials, the 400 point drop in the marker following Geither's bad speech, and my emaciated retirement savings in one succinct statement.

I'm with FDR.

The Economic Collapse in Song(smith)

Who knew a recession could sound so happy?

The Day the Music Died

No, it wasn't February 3rd, 1959 but a day far more recent.

It's.... just.... SO BAD.

Face, meet Palm

I'm going to be talking about one crazy man, so if you're still riding high from the inauguration you might want to skip this one. It's really that stupid.

Let's start with his thesis statement:

"Many American Christians believe, as an article of faith, that we are to pray for the success of our leaders."

Fail.

Every church I have attended has never prayed for the "success" of the president or other world leaders, but that they might have wisdom, mercy, and justice in their governance.

But we're missing out on what's really ridiculous:

"...I do not hesitate today in calling on godly Americans to pray that Barack Hussein Obama fail in his efforts to change our country from one anchored on self-governance and constitutional republicanism to one based on the raw and unlimited power of the central state."

Read that again and mull it over a bit. It took me a few moments to recover from disbelief before I could digest it. This, my friends, is 100% fail from concentrate.

First we have a strange assumption: Obama wants to replace self-governance with central authority. I'm not sure how someone gets that from the first candidate in history who refused public funding because he was getting hundreds of millions of sub-$100 donations from voters across the country.

Second, we have a hidden, implicit statement: Self-governance and "constitutional republicanism" is more godly than an uncontrolled, infinitely powerful central authority.

Third, I have an obvious remark: What is God if not an uncontrolled, infinitely powerful central authority? I'm being facetious, but I found the implication hilarious.

More seriously he speaks as though to say that our former president was a bastion of self-governance and constitutionalism. This is the same president that skirted habeas corpus, expanded the authority and size of the executive branch, and nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's about as diametrically opposed to "self-governance and constitutional republicanism" as it gets without degrading into a complete despot.

Obama has already signed an executive order forcing Guantanimo Bay to close within a year. The news has already aired people saying, effectively, that (constitutional) human rights be damned, this is a national security issue! I want to know if these people have hot daughters, and if they'd allow me to install cameras in their home (and showers) were I to tell them it would help me fight terrorists.

But of course, this insanity wouldn't be complete without insinuating the Obama is a blight against all that is good and right.

"I want Obama to fail because his agenda is 100 percent at odds with God's. Pretending it is not simply makes a mockery of God's straightforward Commandments."

The sheer hubris of this statement is staggering. Beyond the obvious fact that Obama hasn't been writing bills which require children to dishonor their parents or laws which give tax breaks to people who use the name of the Lord in vain. Beyond the fact that Romans 11:34 asks the pointed question, "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became his counselor?" Beyond the subtle implications of "I want". Beyond all of that is this:"

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Romans 13:1, quoted by he, himself in his very argument.

I'm not suggesting, as he works hard to contest before anyone can bring it up, that this verse or series of verses tells us to strictly obey our leaders. But this verse is the poster child for the commonly held belief and theology that God, being in control, appoints leaders according to his will.

The obvious conclusion is that it is impossible to claim that Barack's agenda is 100% at odd with God's unless you wish to assert that God has no control over the authorities of the world. Barack Obama is a part of God's agenda, his master plan. He may be, from some perspectives, a modern day pharaoh but messiah or antichrist he is a tool for God's will.

The diatribe ends as it begins, concluding with the strange notion that we pray for the success of our leaders however evil or unchristian they may be. From start to finish the argument presented was flawed, and only became tangled the further it went.

But more than anything else, I am saddened that in a time of great worry and woe that the most urgent suggestion given is for us to pray for the damnation of others rather than for grace.

Of Cabbages and Kings

The more I think about, the more there was one inarguable black mark on today's inauguration. Boiling, oily it oozed its way through the brilliant day. Yet as soon as its hideous existence was proclaimed the mar burbled away from the effulgence of the occasion, leaving only momentary confusion as the celebration continued without pause.

The moment was not the failure of the chief justice to remember the proper words to the oath of office, or the questionable content of the benediction. What I speak of is one of the worst poems I have heard since leaving college. I may color this discussion by saying so, but try as I might the more I review the poem the more failures I find. It is wholly unremarkable and unworthy of the honor it was granted today.

How foreboding do the words of the Fox News anchors now seem. As the orator approached the podium they noted that but a handful of inaugurations had featured a poet. By the time the poem had ended, the reason for this was painfully clear. Here is the offending script itself:

Praise song for the day.

Each day we go about our business, walking past each other, catching each others' eyes or not, about to speak or speaking. All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues. Someone is stitching up a hem, darning a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.

A farmer considers the changing sky; A teacher says, "Take out your pencils. Begin."

We encounter each other in words, words spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed; words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark the will of someone and then others who said, "I need to see what's on the other side; I know there's something better down the road."

We need to find a place where we are safe; We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain, that many have died for this day. Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle; praise song for the day. Praise song for every hand-lettered sign; The figuring it out at kitchen tables.

Some live by "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

Others by first do no harm, or take no more than you need.

What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air, anything can be made, any sentence begun.

On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp -- praise song for walking forward in that light.

This is not a quality poem. I saw many like it during college from my peers and from myself. It has all the marks of attempted poetry, but none of the discipline of good poetry. It is less a poem and more a speech with some small measure of eloquence and a few poetic moments. I shall explain in detail, subjective as such things are.

Let us begin with the first line. I will state the obvious thought of every proletariat and bourgeois out there, "What the heck?" The grammar of this sentence is nothing short of awkward. The inherent problem is that while the sentence follows such a standard structure as "give thanks for the day" the first two words are very poorly chosen. "Praise song" can be read either as a noun adjunct or a verb-noun pair, with the latter falling in line with the aforementioned grammer structure. However, it is the former that will be first assumed by the majority of American listeners, particularly those of a protestant background. This confusion is an interesting grammatical exercise, but starts the poem off by tripping up anyone reading or especially listening.

Moving on, we come across a sentence that is bland and uninteresting until its end. The first, second, and third sections are almost entirely mundane save for "or not". One can argue that this might be intentional given the subject matter, which is the mundane itself. The following sentence is mildly less plain, but is repeated twice before we finally arrive at something one might truly find interesting. Here, finally at "bramble, thorn and din" we have poetry, imagery that leaps to mind. Yet immediately the concision, the picture begins to collapse again. "Each one of" is what my poetry professor would have called "excessive language". The image here is not enhanced by these words, but delayed.

The final sentence of the second paragraph begins a trend I find unfortunate. One of the basic concepts drilled into me by professors and teachers alike was the importance of avoiding "junk" words, that is words that are vague and undescriptive. "Things", "someone", "something", "stuff" and many other words offer no image, no palpable product. They simple are, taking up space and muddying the waters. These are not forbidden words, they have their place, but it is tempting to place them where they do not belong. Here we begin with "someone", though we quickly move into more precise languish, and end with "the things in need of repair". Despite the attempt to elicit mending, "things" squarely hinders the attempt to evoke a clear thought.

This leads into a terribly vague sentence fragment, "Someone is trying to make music somewhere..." There are a million words one could replace "someone" with, and "somewhere" is completely unnecessary, though if it felt right there are certainly a thousand locations one could describe in three words or less. The second half of the sentence could have been interesting, but the stage has been set as this vague nullity, a non-entity with attributes thrown into the void. The listener or reader is working against the poet to form images, which is the antithesis of poetry.

We have a brief reprieve of three sentences that are actually descriptive. They might have made decent prose, but we have just come from a fairly vague place, one filled with attempts at similar sentences. The constant repetition of the someone does something structure dilutes their impact.

Following this we recede. This is now the third time in one poem that we have encountered "someone". In fact, this sentence brings the grand total of junk words up to five (six if you count the vagueness of "others" in this context) and we're only halfway done. I remember my professor once refused a similar effort of mine, immediately handing it back to me. I had until he finished collecting my peers' efforts to replace the offending words.

This next sentence, employing a semi-colon, is not bad, but it highlights the extremely simplistic sentence structure the author employs. We have now repeated the same subject four times consecutively. We have repeated a subject, verb phrase, object structure nine times. Quite simply, this poem is repetitive.

Repetition is broken by this paragraph and it was perfect until the author couldn't stop at "edifices". "They would then" is an awkward segway into an even more awkward phrase. This isn't a Churchill moment; we don't need to radically alter the sentence structure to rid ourselves of "of".

And at last, we have come full circle. By the time the author has repeated "praise song" for the third time one might, at last, be able to clear the hurdle it throws down. Of course, then it beans you with "The figuring it out at kitchen tables". Figuring what out, the sign? *bonk*

The next two sentences are somehow meant to bridge the confusion we just crossed and lead into the an exposition on love. The author has the transition backwards. She starts with a well known statement on love, and moves away from the word in the next sentence before grabbing us by the collar and pulling us back to it.

And here, at last, we have something resembling poetry. These last sentences, up until everything is once again crushed under the confusing grammar of "praise song" we have a glimpse of the art we so love. I say a glimpse and "something resembling" because up until this point we've been enjoying a speech. Looking over this a hundred times, reading it to write this critique, I can't help but realize that this isn't a poem spoken publicly but public speaking with poetic tendencies. If you pulled me off the street and asked me to speak eloquently I might, if flustered, orate in this fashion.

"Praise song for walking forward in that light." Here at the end I can't help but wonder, what the heck did song ever do to warrant such praise?

I'm being very harsh, ridiculously so. I have no authority by which I make these statements, and I'm certain the author is determined enough that they would easily shrug off my criticism as plebeian. In my haste to write this I certainly didn't go into such detail as I could have. Yet, gracious though I may attempt to be toward the work I can not help but think of how talentless it seems. This wasn't an effort worthy of the honor of the day, it was at best an entry-level college homework assignment. It would not get full marks.

I'm certain that someone can argue over the minutiae that I went into, but I don't think any amount of nitpicking will be able to salvage this wreck. Perhaps I am an elitist.

Habit

Barack Obama is now President of the United States of America. This is strange.

8 years is a long time, a very long time in fact. Just as moving from home or college elicits strange feelings of otherworldliness, so too has it not sunk in that Bush is no longer the leader of our nation. It will be months before it makes sense that Obama is in charge.

But today is history nonetheless. 60 years from now my grandchildren (God willing), grand nieces and nephews, and neighborhood children I ramble to from my rocket powered rocking chair will look at me in bewilderment when I reminisce. What's so strange about a president such as he? 60 years from now thinking that he was any different than any other man is silly talk. Such is the innocent mind of children.

24

24 is a television series I don't watch. It is also a greater number of hours than Bush has left in his presidency. This brings joy to many people who are ready to shove him out the door and welcome our new president. Having voted for both men, I regret the callous nature of the public though I easily understand the mood.

There aren't many measures by which Bush was a successful president, and though I would argue he wasn't as terrible as some might say it would distract me from discussing the most important factor in his failings and worldwide perception. I personally think this to be the most important consideration of any leader and one that many people overlook.

The most important attribute of any president is his ability to communicate. I'm not speaking of eloquence or wit, but of the basic ability to convey ideas, excitement, purpose and character. This is an attribute Bush sorely lacked, and one that Obama obviously has in spades.

This affected not only the president but his entire administration through both ignorance and willful obfuscation Bush's presidency has been one of the least communicative in history. From explaining 9/11, to the justification for the war on Iraq, to standard press conferences he and his staff failed to make themselves understandable. This, unsurprisingly, turned America against them.

I say this not because I'm a particular expert on being president but because my experience as part of a leadership staff has shown me this first hand. The principle applies even in a group as small as a guild of fifty people playing a video game. When the leadership fails in communicating their intent, reasoning, and hope the relationship between them and those they lead crumbles at a staggering rate. Communication is as difficult as rock climbing, letting go is to commit to a freefall.

Freefall is a good word to describe our domestic, international and economic standings. Under a good presidency there would be some confidence that the president and the government cared, even if there were grave concerns about how such matters could come about in the first place. Under this presidency it was clear Bush and all who supported him were afraid of recession, and because they were afraid so were we. Bush missed his cue after Obama clearly stated "There is only one president at a time." He could have seized the moment, put on a brace countenance and showed us that he could lead, inspire, and bring about a better economy. Instead he faded into the shadows, leaving his most important job of instilling confidence to the president-elect months in advance.

Obama is beloved and adored not because he brainwashes his supporters, but because he communicates to them. That his ideas are large, hopeful, and inspiring unto themselves is helpful, but they are only ingredients, materials for him to cook and craft. It is his ability to communicate these ideas and how he thinks that has us so eager to see him inaugurated tomorrow. It is this ability that defeated more established politicians, and it is this ability that we will count on to make this a better nation.

But today I do not revel in the passing of Bush's presidency. Terrible as it may have been we are not blameless. A vote for Gore or Kerry is not a free pass, nor is a vote for Bush a damning mark. If, in the space between, you were a political non-entity there is no excuse. I look at today and think not only of the better job Bush might have done, but of what I too might have ventured and gained by seeking to participate more in a process designed to benefit those who would stand up for what their believe in, rather than sit down and watch it pass by on the television.

Case Study in Miscommunication

I spend a fair amount of time arguing with people over the internet. It's a fun intellectual exercise much of the time, and I avoid it when it is not. However, there is no better place to see the wonders of miscommunication than on the internet. Quite simply, reading comprehension is not what it used to be.

The following is something of a case study using a conversation I recently had regarding fundamental economic issues within World of Warcraft.

Before diving into the case study several terms need to be defined and clarified.

"AH" stands for "Auction House". Auction Houses are an ebay-like interface through which players may place auctions for their goods and wares.

"Enchanters" are a profession within the game. Enchanters can increase the power of an item or set of gear by creating an "enchant". Enchanting requires materials (often abbreviated "mats") in order to do this, which are consumed in the creation of the "enchant". In order to increase one's professional skill one must craft many "enchants", which can be a very expensive process.

World of Warcraft is divided into "servers". Each server represents an identical but separate version of the same universe, differentiated only by the players present there. Each server has its own population and economy emergent from these players. Players can change which server they play on, but only at cost. As such, players tend to play on a single server and take a possessive stance on them (referring to them as "me server", "your server" or "their server").

Terms defined, our miscommunication begins with the following message board post.

I'm curious if any other enchanters are having the following problem on their server. A number of enchanters, probably unaware of the upcoming changes, have been advertising that they'll pay gold to anyone bringing their own mats for an enchant if they skill up in the process. Typical "tips" are going between 10-25g.

This doesn't prevent enchanters from selling materials on the AH, which is obviously the most lucrative part of the profession, but it severely undermines attempts to sell vellums/enchants on the AH or to make gold by doing in-person enchants.

The player making this post has observed what they see as a new phenomenon in their local economy. Enchanters seeking to increase their skill have taken to offering money in order to increase the amount of business. The player has also observed an effect this has on the economy, the raw materials for enchanting are now more expensive than the finished product.

The crux of the post, however, is the very first sentence. The author wishes to know the magnitude of the phenomenon.

The response proves interesting.

Does it? I got a couple of enchants off the AH yesterday because they were cheaper than the mats cost, not to mention the convenience factor of finding someone to get the enchant done. If anything, it's a clever marketing ploy( although if they don't get a skillup, you're left paying full mats price, which may not be a bargin), but I don't think it has an affect on the overall market.

There are several puzzling aspects to this response. First, the information the origination post seeks is not mentioned. Second, the first sentences appear to be a rebuttal of the idea that the described phenomenon has the stated effect on the economy, yet instead provides supporting evidence. For someone looking to verify the magnitude of a new phenomenon this response seems, at best, to be wholly confused and fallacious.

However, a second look at the response reveals the miscommunication. The responder has latched onto the word "problem" and identified the problem as the second paragraph. From this perspective the issue isn't the specific practice. As such, he responds by explaining why there isn't a problem!

This isn't immediately obvious, and thus is born the following reply from the original author.

You effectively proved my point. Selling something for less than the cost of materials is selling at cost. You saved money, but the enchanter didn't. If one must sell at cost in order to reliably move auctions there's little incentive to go that route, hence an undermined market.

Offering money to bring in enchant business may be a marketing ploy, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it clever. Clever marketing ploys increase profits; this ploy decreases profits sharply. It doesn't matter if you whiff a skillup and don't have to pay, few people tip someone who was paying for business and there's no guarantee that people are bringing you materials from your own auctions. Additionally it sets expectations that put you out of business once you max out your skill. You can't keep competing with the people still offering money if they skill up, and the AH now reflects the fact that everyone expects enchants to be cheaper than their materials cost. In short, you were better off not leveling beyond the point where you could DE everything.

Again, the biggest profit is, was, and likely will always be the materials themselves. The point is that the incidental income and branching options for an enchanter attempting to maximize their profit have been cut off by lazy/stupid marketing ploys, and I wondered if this was a problem unique to my server or if it was widespread.

A resounding rebuttal, but the energy was wholly misdirected. From the author's perspective he's clearing up a fallacious argument to make room for the point of his curiosity, but in fact is only stoking the flames of confusion. His peer will see this as an attempt to reassert that this is, in fact, a problem.

There is actually a growing problem in this conversation. The original author is increasingly focused on the specifics, while the responder is diverging into greater and greater generality. What started as a simple misconception as to what was the crucial point is now diverging into a true chasm.

I think you're missing the point. You're treating the entire profession as a profit-driven venture, when for many, many people it's entirely not. I'm leveling my main's blacksmithing because I enjoy wearing the gear, not because it's going to be making me a profit( it's entirely the opposite of making a profit actually). Similarly, I'm not leveling my alt's enchanting, because it's far more profitable to sell _all_ the enchanting mats I get - and I don't care whether he's an uber-enchanter.

As for the giving gold for the privilege of doing the enchant, it's a "clever" ploy in that you're assuming no risk, you're offering a "cash-back" incentive, and your alternative in leveling is trying to sell the glut of enchants you're doing at below-cost anyway.

Notice immediately that what interests the original author has been relegated to a tertiary importance by the responder. Not only is it separated from the responder's most focused point, but it's subservient to the issue of its own cleverness! The responder himself remains focused on "the problem" and identifies the original author's viewpoint as a potential source of his inability to understand that "the problem" isn't a problem, or at least isn't new and interesting. Well-meaning as he may be, this will only open the chasm even wider.

The original author responds.

I'm treating the profession entirely as a profit driven venture because this is largely the goal of this thread and those posting here. Competing with the noted categories of people is an implicit part of doing so and not something that is likely to surprise anyone familiar with WoW's economy.

My three part point is simply this: There are people on my server paying to enchant other people's gear for skillups if they bring their own materials, this effectively undermines the profitability of anything but selling raw enchanting materials, is this a localized or widespread phenomenon?

What motivates these people isn't relevant to my question and concern.

The original author has identified that this discussion has veered wildly off the track he was wishing to discuss and attempts to reground the discussion with the second paragraph. Unfortunately the conversation is too far gone at this point. The second paragraph will be completely misunderstood, diluted as it is by the first paragraph and the concluding sentence.

The responder's reply:

In response to your single-pointed question: This hasn't changed, well...ever in my experience. So not only is it widespread, but it's hardly worth noting. The only interesting part is that it's a new and clever way of subsidizing the painful leveling process - much better than coming up with the mats and selling those same enchants on the AH below-cost. Since I've started playing, it's never been hard to find people willing to( and often advertising ) provide leveling enchants for free. The "tip" in these situations is the opportunity to get a leveling point. Sometimes you'll even find folks willing to give you the enchant with their mats, just so it doesn't go to waste. Less common now with the vellums, but not out of the ordinary either.

The miscommunication is complete. "The problem" has now absorbed the original author's point of interest. The responder will continue to discuss the general notion of undercutting while the original author continues to express his interest in a new, unique case thereof. Until one or the other identifies this issue no understanding can be reached.

This case study may be applied practically in either resolving communications issues on in causing them. Skilled trolls likely make use of these slight misunderstandings to perpetuate conversations that might otherwise end. By being only one step out of sync with their target they create a dissonance which any human naturally wishes to resolve.

This concludes the study. Though it should be noted that the original author did manage to identify the source of the conflict and, after a few attempts, managed to resolve the confusion.

Brave New World

I don't see the point in a technological future where tutorials crash and critical updates blue screen a computer.

I can see it now.

PICARD: Data, report on the anomaly.
DATA: I'm sorry captain, but our sensors have experience a critical error. A ticket has automatically been opened with FedSoft and they will be responding in the next 24 hours.
PICARD: A critical error? What was the cause?
DATA: The precise cause is unknown sir, but it appears that our sensor software was attempting to self-update when the error occurred.
RIKER: Captain! The anomaly appears to be growing, we're being sucked in!
PICARD: Full reverse!
CRUSHER: The engines aren't responding sir!
PICARD: Explain ensign!
CRUSHER: They were automatically shutdown thirty minutes ago by FedSoft Warpcheck. I can't override without rebooting the entire system.
PICARD: How long will that take?
CRUSHER: It claims 5 minutes, but in practice it always takes 15.
PICARD: And before we are absorbed into the anomaly?
DATA: Judging by our acceleration and the growing size of the anomaly, 12 minutes an 42 seconds.
WORF: Perhaps a controlled torpedo spread could contain the anomaly, buying us time.
PICARD: Make it so Mr. Worf, and I want those warp engines rebooted and online in 10 minutes, no more.
WORF: Captain, the torpedo systems haven't been fire since our last update and are asking if we would like to reconfigure them now.
PICARD: Ignore it.
WORF: Captain, it is giving a warning that firing without reconfiguring may yield suboptimal results-
RIKER: Just fire the damn torpedos.
WORF: I am entering in my account name and password to confirm now.
PICARD: Pray that this works.
WORF: My password has expired, I must choose a new password before I can continue.
PICARD: Could this get any worse?
DATA: Judging from past events it seem highly-
PICARD: That was a rhetorical question Data.
WORF: I have successfully changed my password, firing torpedoes now.
The Enterprise rocks violently. A random console explodes sending its operator flying across the bridge.
PICARD: Report!
RIKER: The torpedoes detonated before being fired!
WORF: Todsah! The configuration of the torpedoes reset when I changed my password!
DATA: Captain, shields are failing. We are being absorbed into the anomaly.
PICARD: Status on the engines?
CRUSHER: There was an error on shutdown, FedSoft is running a mandatory check before bringing them online.
PICARD: ALL HANDS ABANDON SHIP! REPEAT, ALL HANDS ABANDON-
The Enterprise is absorbed into the anomaly.

Q: Can I offer you an enterprise level solution with omnipresent help support?

Crayons and Physics

Sometimes, I just can't help but be impressed by the awesome some people have wrought. This puzzle game comes out tomorrow, and it's something I think even my Dad might consider a worthy investment.


Crayon Physics Deluxe from Petri Purho on Vimeo.

Doesn't hurt that the music makes you want to be a peace with anything and everything.

Religion and Programming

Are they really so different? Some think not.

Best Purchase Ever

Sunday: The temperature is 80 degrees and I'm at REI. Some random neuron firing made me think it would be a good idea to see if they had any fingerless gloves. I left with a very economical pair feeling successful.

Monday: The temperature is 20 degrees (and dropping). My car is coated in ice as I leave work, I don't have an ice scraper so I have to defrost my windows by heating up the car. I make it home half an hour later and sit down at my computer. My hands are cold.

Best purchase ever. I love these gloves. I need an ice scraper.

8-Bit Jesus

My Dad will roll his eyes, but I think this is awesome.

Taking class Christmas carols, songs, and hymns and remixing them isn't exactly new. Taking songs and making 8-bit chiptune versions of them isn't new either.

8-bit Jesus not only combines these two concepts, but also the style of specific NES companies and franchises. There's We Three Kings as a Konami track, Super Mario Bros' version of Jingle Bells and the ever-peaceful Stille Nacht as a Mega Man theme.

I'm in retro-holiday awe and bliss.

Advent

From Hubble With Love.

Wrath of the Lich King: Leveling and Lore

Three steps away from the level cap, I am astounded.

Looking back on all the questing I have done I realize now that Blizzard has held true to their promises. They wanted story to be a big focus this expansion and by golly they threw the whole nine yards into it. It's wonderful.

The Burning Crusade was, and remains, Blizzard's huge gameplay fix. For the most part they tore up the foundations of the game in order to rebuild it all better. The job they did was superb and the expansion reflected that. Burning Crusade was built to test the new gameplay mechanics, to require the playerbase to learn them, understand them and love them. For those who could it was awesome.

For everyone else, or those who were tied down by everyone else, the expansion was half-baked. Blizzard's big mistake was assuming that all players, or at least most of them, would eventually come around and learn the esoteric intricacies of their carefully designed game. They found out the hard way that this was just as huge a barrier to entry as the required overhead of organizing forty people. Huge swaths of content were left undiscovered by the vast majority of the population because they could not, or would not, min/max to the extreme levels required.

On top of that, there really wasn't a cohesive story to Outland. It was steeped in history, brimming with interesting peoples, and had many memorable bosses. However, none of it really held together. The Burning Legion opens up the Dark Portal, forcing the Horde and Alliance to work together and push them back. Upon doing so they... wander around a marsh, help some ogres, relive Jim Henson's Dark Crystal, fight alongside mana sheiks, scale Medivh's tower back in Azeroth and generally fail to encounter any centralized threat from the Burning Legion. Oh, and Illidan dies somewhere in there.

Wrath of the Lich King is quite the opposite. Upon landing in Northrend you're surrounded by Scourge forces. While there are quests along the way which divert from battling them, everywhere you go the touch of Arthas can be seen and felt. The quest text that was occasionally interesting but mostly ignored in the Burning Crusade carries far more character and depth. With the simplification of many game mechanics the whole thing is in some ways an about face from the Burning Crusade.

I am only now nearing the completion of the third of nine zones (ten if you count Wintergrasp). It is likely I'll only have completed four before I hit the level cap, but I intend on completing them all. Meanwhile my Death Knight languishes.

Teatime Philosophy

From the BBC.

1. Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

At first the situations presented seem to build a clear set of dilemmas. If we're willing to run over the one person over the five, why would we hestitate to gun down one of our to save the others. If we're willing to do that, why hestitate to kill a person for their organs? The questions are disturbing not because the situations are analogous, but because it isn't immediately obvious why they are not.

The key attribute of the train situation is the powerlessness of the driver. Their only ability is to change which track the train travels, anything else is impossible. Nothing short of a miracle can change the fact that someone will be run over. In such a situation there is no recourse but to accept that someone must die, and the obvious choice that the fewer dead the better.

The kidnapper situation is starkly different. Despite being simply explained, the same hopelessness is not present. You, tasked to shoot one of the other hostages, have far greater command over the situation than in the case of the train. The gun you are given, and your own innate abilities, afford far more power than the hopeless driver of the train. It's dishonest to limit the question to the dichotomy of choosing one of the hostages or all of them, because there are more choices than two, however limited or ill-advised those options may be.

So when thinking about the situation with the patients, neither of the other hypotheticals are particularly helpful as they only serve to oversimplify the situation. It overlooks the potential for organ donors, the existence of other people outside of Bill, and the desires of the patients themselves. In short, the proper answer is that while Bill may have the right to sacrifice himself so that others may live, we do not have the right to sacrifice him. Rather, we should ask "Should all capable individuals be organ donors?"


2. Are you the same person who started started reading this article?

The answer is, simply put, yes. I am the same person, but I am not the same.

The question seeks to dive into the muddy and ever confusing realm of the self. Is a car taken apart and put back together the same car? What if you take two cars apart, and put them back together mixing the parts perfectly evenly, do you have the old cars or two new cars? These kinds of questions always arise, and for someone such as I must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Starting backwards, the situation incorrectly assumes an absolute uniqueness of the self. It isn't just that one person cannot be in two places at once, but that two identical minds can not exist at the same time without being the same person. It's the second, implicit assumption that is at fault. One person can not be in two places at once, therefore two identical minds in two different places can not be one person.

What's important is to realize that while the two minds are theoretically identical, the instant either person awakes that is no longer the case. They see a different room through different eyes, and interact with different people creating different memories. While everything before a certain point is shared, they cease to be identical.

So we have two different people originating from one. This creates something of a conundrum, which of the two people is now "you"? Does it make a difference whether the original "source" was destroyed? It is undeniable that both people will wake up from the operation remembering what happened before it, their mother's gentle smile, and that they forgot an important meeting. Which leads us to the following puzzling conclusion.

Both people are the same person as the "you" before the operation, but are not the same person as each other. If we are unable to accept the importance of this kind of continuity of the self, then we much accept the article conclusion that the you from moment to moment is a completely separate entity bound to the others only by circumstance. I can not accept that conclusion simply because the circumstances themselves are continuity, and treating them as anything else is dishonest.


3. Is that really a computer screen in front of you?

Tongue in cheek: No! I printed out the article. HAH SUCKERS!

More seriously, my senses tell me that it is so. I can see the monitor, feel the monitor, hear the monitor, taste the monitor and even smell the monitor.

Note immediately that there are five senses corroborating the existence of the monitor. It is dishonest of the article to so haphazardly compare five senses working in harmony to one barometer. It acts as though the only method of verification we have is sight, which is somewhat discriminatory to a certain blind Republican I know who wrote lengthy (and hard to read) emails and browsed web pages.

One could attempt to argue it's irrelevant how many senses we have because they are all processed by the same brain and thus independant verification remains impossible. This is true, except that I can ask other people if the computer monitor is in front of me. They can verify its existance. At which point you question whether there are actually other people, and so it goes on until all of reality is untangled into a mess on the floor.

This question is a carefully disguised version of the age old quest for proof of reality. As I believe no one has yet found adequate proof of reality's existance, I'll ask the person who is posing the question to first prove reality exists. Until they have, I won't waste my time on people who don't exist.


4. Did you really choose to read this article?

I've actually answered this many times before, and the answer is yes. Being able to predict or know beforehand that someone will do something doesn't mean that the person had no choice, or was unable to choose. This isn't necessarily intuitive to Western thinking, but it's my viewpoint on the subject (and one that I'm not inclined to rehash again for the sake of this question).

Yay Philosphy.

Wrath of the Lich King: Death Knights and Dungeons

I haven't had much chance to progress much farther through Northrend, partly because of real life fun and obligations and partly because playing a Death Knight with my brother is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'll start there.

The Death Knight starting area is amazing. The first half hour we played was spent running around Acherus reading all the books and scrolls lying around. Some were humorous, some were informative, and some were dripping with the juicy lore and story that I love so much. The quests that followed were very story driven, interesting and fun. The slow and careful pacing of talent points also alleviated the possibility of being overwhelmed. The "Phasing Technology" which sounded very much like hype actually lives up to the press. While I can't see it being universally applicable, it truly makes the Death Knight starting area one of the best experiences in the game. Even if you're perfectly happy with your current class of choice, you owe it to yourself to run through the Death Knight starting area at least once.

Some highlights include receiving quests from raid bosses straight out of Naxxramas, the haunting whispers of the Lich King urging you to destroy everything, the incredible voice actors behind Darion Mograine and Tirion Fordring, and more.

Outland is now overrun with Death Knights. We know this because it's impossible to go anywhere in Hellfire Peninsula without standing knee deep in them. My brother and I were a part of Ramparts group starring almost exclusively Death Knights (one Warrior tagged along) that would have functioned better if we weren't the only competent members of the group. It was still fun, but also pretty psychotic (I can't count the number of times that if it wasn't for the direct actions of my brother and I, the group would not have succeeded).

So in short, Death Knights are extremely fun, particularly when played with your sibling.

I did manage to do some grouping for instances in Northrend, both Utgarde Keep and the Nexus. There were many complaints that the Burning Crusade's instance design was uninspired, linear, and largely boring. I don't think we'll find such problems in Northrend.

Utgarde Keep is linear, but it is also awesome. The trash isn't interminable or uninteresting, the instance itself is rustic yet engaging in style, and the bosses are non-trivial. The last boss in particular was incredibly fun. I can't think of another boss where the tank was required to flee periodically or face certain death.

The Nexus was stunningly beautiful, it is also the first instance I've encountered where the very first mob you see is the last boss. There are three interlinked paths to take each leading to a boss which, when defeated, will release a lock allowing combat with the final boss. The trash in this instance is also perfectly proportioned and interesting. One path involves unkillable flowers that will continue to pester you until the boss is conquered. The last boss is a huge challenge, sporting a debuff that requires you to move constantly or freeze to death. We wiped several times before mastering the fight.

One notable difference between the two runs was that I respecced away from putting my spare points in Protection to throwing them in Arms. This meant I lost Improved Thunderclap, which I noticed immediately upon multi-mob pulls in the Nexus. It wasn't terribly difficult, but it was noticeably harder to keep mobs attentive to the meat shield rather then my squishier comrades.

I'm really looking forward to the level 80 instances and whatever else I encounter along the way. Alas, more familial obligations and important events are looking to continue to keep me away from the frozen realms of Northrend. My virtual snow fix must wait.

Wrath of the Lich King: Initial Impression

This will be short, since I need to be asleep an hour ago.

1. Leveling is slow. It probably feels this way because I'm now adjusted to the mondo crazy leveling from 1-70, but it definitely feels sluggish. In a way, this is a good thing as it means I'll be able to savor everything better. At the same time, looking at my 6 other 70s and my Death Knight makes me wonder how long that joy will last.

2. It's subdued. Hellfire Peninsula was very much in your face at first, with such an alien landscape as to really draw your attention everywhere to its sharp contrasts. The Howling Fjord is far less brazen, feeling very much like just another zone in Azeroth. This is also, in some ways, a good thing though I'm disappointed that I'm thus far unable to capture the innocence I longed for.

3. The quests are very well designed such that it's easy to complete them even with competition.

All in all so far so good. I'm still waiting for that tingling awe moment, I wonder if I've simply become to good/calculated when it comes to the game.

WRATH

BLOGGER NEEDS EXPANSION BADLY.

Purge

I just deleted over 4000 emails from my email address.

I'll bet Dad's mail server feels like a hiker after taking off their pack.

How to Fail Christianity

In one easy step: Pray to the bull statue on Wall Street for money.

http://wonkette.com/403920/jesus-people-pray-that-false-idol-will-save-gods-economy

This kind of Fail should have been obvious. Even those who learned everything they needed to know about Christianity from watching Charleston Heston in Ben Hur and the Ten Commandments would know better than this. You could ask any agnostic, atheist, muslim, wiccan, or anyone on the street really whether this was in line with Christian teachings, and they'd all pass the test with flying colors.

I could only be more shocked if my Dad failed basic arithmetic.

While we're talking about Christians missing the point, here's another easy way to fail Christianity.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iP5oYpZe4LDgzSejZYMuH__QvZwwD94BFQE80

We have what is one of Christianity's most holy sites, and the six groups responsible for its keeping are too busy squabbling over it to fix the roof, build a fire exit or even take down a ladder.

Interactions between people are never simple, and interactions between six different groups are surely extremely complicated, particularly over something so important. However, one would hope and expect that Christians, of all people, would be able to practice the words of their namesake and get around normal human fallacies and work together. Alas.

At this point I wonder if it wouldn't be better if the whole thing collapsed (though the endless recriminations resulting from that would be unhelpful).

I Must Be Crazy!

Spammers have resorted to a new tactic, trying to convince your that you're crazy.

I just got an email from myself telling me to sign up for exclusive offers. What other madness occurs while I'm comatose?

The Wonder of His Work

I imagine I would have been dreaming this had I spent my election evening playing Mario to pass the time.

At the End of the Tour

Last night Obama secured his place as the 44th President of the United States of America. For twenty-two months I have followed his campaign with ever increasing vigor and intensity. For almost as long as I've lived in Texas this election has been at the center of my attention. It is over, and yet everything is just now beginning.

As I remember this election the chain of memories flows back years ago when my mother first uttered the name Barack Obama. She was reading, if I recall correctly, Obama's book Dreams my Father and said in her direct no-nonsense style "he makes a lot of sense, I'd like to see him run for President someday". I was in high school at the time, blissfully ignorant of politics, but the conversation we had that day stuck with me for reasons I couldn't possibly have understood at the time. My mother talked of how he represented a new generation of politicians, and how all the "old farts" in the system now needed to move aside. We needed people with a new perspective, young people who understood the new age and the generations that with which it would come. My mother's uncanny insight is now almost prophecy.

Barack Obama gave his speech announcing candidacy for the Democratic nomination nearly a decade later. By coincidence I turned my radio on as I drove to work and caught snippets. With just the fleeting glance the program provided I was overwhelmed by the ideals and goals it presented. Moments before I had given politics a disinterested and disaffected cold shoulder, but despite my cynicism I quickly pulled up the entire speech at work and listened with rapt attention as this candidate, now my candidate, made his first case. The resonance I felt was strong enough to break crystal.

It wasn't until much later that I made the connection. By then he had already won Iowa, lost New Hampshire, and recieved my first $25 donation. In viewing for the first time his famous 2004 speech at the Democratic National convention I remembered my mother's words and hope that he or someone like him would ascend into and transcend our politics. Even as the other candidates began to disappoint, both practically and in timbre, Obama continually defied my cynical eye I developed from being sandwiched between my adamanty republic college roomates and my sister's passionately democratic circle of close friends. In situations where another politicians would weasel their way around giving a definitive answer, Obama stood his ground and staked a claim. He gave clear, if non-Manichean, answers to the issues of Abortion, gay marriage and race. Each passing week reinforced my feeling that he was a democrat because of his positions, rather than holding those positions because he was a democrat. "Messianic" was used to describe him, an image that has a certain appeal in these troubling times.

His messianic purity is, of course, a myth. Obama would eventually disappoint me in how his campaign spun the various metrics used to measure success in the primaries, and his less than honest excuses for backing out of public financing. The former became moot eventually, though I really wish he'd simply said, "I'm backing out of public financing because I feel it best allows me to compete with the republican financial machine" in regards to the latter. These sins I have forgiven, though I will certainly pounce upon him should he fall short again. Still, two black marks in twenty-two months is an almost unreachable bar for politicians, it was uplifting to find one who could clear it.

And so, hundreds of gaffes, stump speechs, sound bites, polls and policies later we've come to the end. It's ephemereal and unbelievable, but the election is over. I don't have to mention John McCain, save for if he truly goes maverick and decides to thwart any Republican attempt at a filibuster. I don't have to read polls, demographic turnouts, projects and pundit analyses. The paradigm of these last years is over, and I am left in bewilderment.

In a way it's back to square one. In the past I paid as little attention to what happens after an election as I did to what happens before. Just as watching the primaries with intent was a new experience for me, so too is this period of transition. Yet for the time being a quiet elation wells within me as I think about how my support played a role in this outcome.

I pose a final question, one I think is entirely pertinent: Why does Kenya get to have a day of celebration and we don't?

In one moment...

In one moment I felt
the sound of the word
an echo from unknown waters
hope.

Vote

It's not just a right, it's a responsibility.

All I Want for Christmas

I have my two front teeth, but I don't have:

1) An Electric Razor. Mom's complaining I don't shave enough, my poor, bloody face is trembling at the thought of more than once weekly massacres.

2) Sony Vegas. It's $200, so I'll accept minor donations in lieu of the full package.

3) A Guitar. Low Priority, High Price. Not advisable, but I thought I'd throw that out there.

4) A Gamer Chick. Resumes accepted but direct interviews preferred.

5) An Obama Presidency plzkthx.

6) A Monkey Music Mix. This is a specialty job that only one couple I know can perform.

7) Music CDs. Classical, Techno, and anything you think is awesome is welcome.

8) Nerdy T-Shirts always accepted. Nice shirts and ties also a good idea.

9) Prayers that I actually get Christmas week off.

Rationality

The following may seem like an odd statement to begin a dissection of the reactions to Barack Obama's informercial/documentary from last night, but I assure you it's pertinent.

My mom loves science fiction.

I can remember tiptoeing through her office and staring in bewilderment at the vast assortment of books my mom kept there. From high fantasy to christian literature, biographies to mysteries, textbooks to historical novels my mom's voracious appetite for reading was enshrined on the walls and bookshelves of her ever-cluttered workspace.

At center stage in the impressive array of culture were the science fiction novels and VHSs of old tv shows. Doctor Who and Star Trek stood proudly alongside such works as Earthmen and Strangers or I, Robot. Of all of the seemingly infinite possibilities contained in the books and visual media the room represented, these held the greatest of mysteries.

One such mystery is that of the alien, the "other", the incomprehensible. In contrast to the Manichean settings of fantasy or the psychological obsession of detective cases, science fiction often delves into the uncomfortable realm of the unorthogonal. Human protagonists deal with creatures that have as many dissimilarities with our often ill-fated stand-ins as they do human characteristics.

It is in this mode of thought where we first experience the horrific idea of the alien culture and thought process. Many of the stories I found in my mother's treasure trove told of spacemen who were so unlike us that "culture shock" could not begin to describe the situation. Aliens who not only perceive the universe in a different way, but whose basic fundamental processes of thought are completely incompatible with our own reason and logic. It's not that they're irrational, it's that their definition, were there one, of rationality is completely foreign and beyond our ability to translate.

How does one begin to communicate with a race whose culture is based on, from our perspective, completely illogical and unreasonable tenets? Where does one begin when not only the basic assumptions that allow us to communicate are blown away, but the very concept of communication is something completely different to those on the other end? It's a challenge that many protagonists and ill-fated adventurers have accepted, their efforts the thrilling narrative of the novels I so enjoyed.

Which brings us back to politics. *rimshot*

Joking aside, there's a certain objectivity, self-awareness and rationality one expects from responses to something as important as Barack Obama's half hour infomercial. Whether your response is adulatory or vehemently opposed there is an underlying assumption that while one's gut instincts play into it so too does one's reason.

With that mindset, take a look at the following reaction from Craig Shirley:

On the Barackumentary: After watching The One last night, I weepingly came to the conclusion that our country should change the national pastime from baseball to breastfeeding. Let's all hold hands and sing "Michael Row the Boat Ashore," and have a national group encounter session where we can share our pain with The One.

I'm sure if I confess to being a white straight conservative male and thus by definition evil, we can start a national dialogue to help me see the error of my ways. If I try really, really hard and get in touch with my inner child that is.

...

Putting aside the ambiguity that this could just as easily be discussing the conclusion to the Matrix Trilogy, I must ask one question: "lolwut"

"Irrational" completely fails to describe this succinct diatribe. Rather than engage the infomercial on any intelligible level, he defaults to burning the most sissified strawman in history. Maybe the low price of gasoline was too great an opportunity to miss.

The web of assumptions, condescending notions and obsolete stereotypes is so thick and tangled that I can't even begin to unravel it. Where exactly did breastfeeding come, what does it have to do with baseball, and how did Obama inspire that completely irrelevant point (if there was one)?

Who is Craig Shirley? He is the alien, the other, the incomprehensible being. Our fundamental assumptions, even the concept of an assumption, can not be used to outline or fathom the processes by which this man functions. At best, we can figure out that putting anything remotely liberal in front of him will result in an odd collection of unrelated nonsense spewing out of his mouth.

Unlike the heroes of science fiction we don't have the driving force of narrative by which we can make slow progress. As we encounter these people we can only hope and pray that some potential bridge can be found or built. In the meantime, we must watch in awe and fear as people such as Shirley attempt to dictate the politics of the future.

It would be easier to ignore the existence of these aliens in our midst, but unfortunately they are here to stay, and they will have children who will think like them. The longer we wait in trying to break through to them the more of them there will be and the harder it will be to succeed. Hopefully whoever is president can fix the education system enough to facilitate the process at a young age.

In Sync

Hoorah for "debates".

Rant: A House Divided

You've seen it on the news, in the papers, across the internet and from the podium. Apparently John Edwards was only half right in talking about the "two Americas". There are two Americas divided by reality, not the poverty lines of Edwards' mantra.

According to Sarah Palin, Nancy Pfotenhauer and Michelle Bachmann America is divided into the Pro or "real" America and the Anti or "fake" America. If you're curious as to what exactly they said Jon Stewart can elaborate, though not without a few explicitives.

I am utterly beside myself in awe. It is beyond my understanding, my comprehension, my basic faith in the fundamental goodness imbued in us by God's own image that these kinds of sentiments can exist. Sparta? This is madness!

That precipitous insanity is the single most disturbing milestone of this election. The unruly and isolated extremists making a name for themselves at McCain rallies and on YouTube were stomach turning, Revered Wright was troubling, but this is above and beyond all other competitors. Unless McCain calls for his loyal supporters to rise up as an army against socialism, to bear their arms and strike out against the demonic liberals seeking to corrupt their nation, nothing can possibly dethrone this critical failure in rational thought.

There is no rational thought process to find here, no workable logic by which one can disqualify the very city that has defined America for decades. This crass and banal division of America is an unconscionable attack on the "other". "America" is now a buzzword for neoconservatives, not a country. Do not mistake their fervor for nationalism. What we see is entirely, and completely, about a national clique in its death throes.

The Republicans have an important choice, either toss the extremists off the ship or let the whole thing sink. It's a difficult choice because extremists are almost always activists, and activists are extremely important to running campaigns. Ceding such a significant amount of power is a painful suggestion, but it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, it's the best thing to do as anything else gravely risks complete self destruction.

Whatever happens, I'm still shocked and discouraged that these sentiments have been so boldly and carelessly thrown onto the airwaves by such important people. We have already eroded our foreign relations, must our internal ones suffer as well?

Non-Euclidean Logic

My father will quickly tell me that I'm abusing the notion of "non-euclidean", but that's currently how the following thought process looks to me. Quoth Rick Davis:

"Look, John McCain has told us a long time ago before this campaign ever got started, back in May, I think, that from his perspective, he was not going to have his campaign actively involved in using Jeremiah Wright as a wedge in this campaign.

Now since then, I must say, when Congressman Lewis calls John McCain and Sarah Palin and his entire group of supporters, fifty million people strong around this country, that we're all racists and we should be compared to George Wallace and the kind of horrible segregation and evil and horrible politics that was played at that time, you know, that you've got to rethink all these things. And so I think we're in the process of looking at how we're going to close this campaign. We've got 19 days, and we're taking serious all these issues."

The thought process displayed here is incredibly difficult to follow. In fact, it very much reminds me of the proofs I used to display to my father back when he was my math teacher. I jumped to conclusions spuriously based on misconceptions of the various laws I thought I was following, the results being obviously bad. I have to thank my Dad for the meticulousness he required; I'd be less aware of the egregious conclusion leaping without that standard.

We begin with two bad assumptions.

The first bad assumption is that Congressman Lewis' statements apply to all of McCain's supporters. The remarks the Congressman made are so clearly directed at McCain and Palin that there is little else to say. The leap here is equivalent to McCain's campaign self-righteously decrying the New York Times' recent report on his health as suggesting his fifty million supporters are all old.

The second bad assumption that Lewis is calling McCain and Palin racists. Lewis did not accuse them of being racist but of stoking the fires thereof. One does not have to be a racist to incite a racist to violence. It remains a strong and perhaps repugnant claim, but a different one nonetheless.

These two assumptions are but the first two steps in a triple jump of ludicrous proportions. Calling fifty million people racist is far more sensational than telling two people they're inciting racism. It's a lot harder to have a righteous tirade about the latter. Despite the factual nonsense, these statements lay the foundation for the third and final leap.

This last jump to the conclusion holds that because Lewis called McCain, Palin and fifty million supporters racists the door is now open to bring Reverend Wright back onto the stage. If this were the Olympics we'd be setting a world record. This is a non sequitur, or at least should be. It assumes that it is okay to return tit for tat, an eye for an eye, and end this election in a bloody fist fight to the finish. Somehow it's completely deplorable that Lewis has done this, but it won't be equally detestable to do the same in return.

Ridiculous doesn't begin to explain this logic. Here is McCain's big chance to put "Country First", to counter Obama's claim that nearly 100% of his tactics and ads are negative. Instead of seizing the opportunity his campaign is considering, publicly, bringing racism back into the election in force.

With this kind of thinking, is it any wonder McCain is losing? I can't help but think that from the moment he won the primary his party has been brow beating him into towing the weighty lines that have been failing these last few years. The McCain that many independents voted for in the primary is not the McCain who decried "the health of the mother" as a liberal wedge for killing babies. The McCain who now despises "spreading the wealth around" is not the same one who so rightly called Obama out on producing platitudes and rarely policy months ago. It's an unfortunate reversal I'd rather not have seen.

I wish I could fast forward to November 4th with all this nonsense is overwith.

Rant: Dollar Voting

Don't waste your vote by not voting.

You've heard it from the demographically obsessed media, X group is more important than Y group because they actually get up and vote. Politicians target people who vote or they lose. It's as simple as that. Not voting sends a clear message to them, "I'm not worth your time".

This is a clear and obvious aspect of politics from the local to the national level, those who participate get things done.

Corporate America is exactly the same. People often talk about "voting" with their money, but this is usually in the context of choosing between a purchase and saving rather than picking between a number of purchasing options. Companies don't track failed sales, they track the people who buy their products. They don't give any heed to people who just save their money, looking instead at who is going to their competitors and why.

Keep this in mind if you're avoiding a purchase or spurning a choice between two political candidates you hate. If you want to send a message, staying home and keeping your vote to yourself only leaves the decisions up to someone else. Even if you throw it at Joe's Custom Built Rickety Fridges/Political Candidates your vote is better used than if it isn't used at all.

Guwuh?

The following YouTube video was cited as a reason Obama will lost the election.



I watched it, waiting for the "gotcha" moment that McCain has deplored and found nothing but one reasonable man talking specifics to another reasonable man talking specifics.

I'm sure Obama's plan seems like the end of times for some staunch Republicans, but I think it's safe to say that the candor shown in this video isn't surprising or catastrophic.

Volatility

One thing that has struck me recently is the volatility of the McCain campaign. I'm not referencing Obama's attempts to paint McCain as "erratic" so much as the actions of McCain's own campaign which have contributed toward that perception.

The timeline here is of great importance. After the primaries ended both campaigns largely coasted with a few spikes of interest here and there. Both were roughly even, with a slight popular vote advantage to Obama. One can easily recall the subtle nervousness of the Democrats, and the tempered jubilation of the Republicans. Everyone had thought that Obama would be coasting to an easy win, but McCain was clearly challenging that assumption, particularly when, following the conventions, he took the lead over Obama.

The conventions were the most important events in this election, moreso than Reverend Wright, the debates or even the economic crisis. They set the stage for everything that was to follow, from message to methodology for each campaign.

Obama played safe with his running mate choice and has effectively been following that pattern ever since. Even when his party was in a state of panic following McCain's rise in the polls he held steady. Even in recent weeks when his party has seen opportunities for him to land crucial knockout punches, he abstains rather than risk losing balance. This strategy is unflinching in its disregard for criticism, although it's terribly boring and almost disappointing.

McCain took a large risk with his running mate, and has been taking big risks ever since. These gambles have often failed to pay off, resulting in the necessity to step back and thus create mixed messages. The obvious cases being the suspension of his campaign and subsequent showing up at the debate anyway, the Ayers attacks followed by stepping back from that rhetoric, and his recent back and forth as to whether he was actually going to make a statement of economic policy or not. This presents evidence for Obama's case that McCain is "erratic".

What many fail to recognize is that we've been here before; it was only earlier this year that Hillary Clinton experienced a similar period in her campaign. When her message of experience lost traction she began seeking a new track to follow. Unfortunately, she went through numerous messages trying to find one that would stick. The constantly changing messages on her podium drew a stark contrast to the ironically unchanging slogans of Obama. Even when she "found her voice" there were aftershocks of the "erratic" behavior, such as the comments about the potential for assassination.

The most striking part of the parallel is in the advice given to Clinton and McCain. Much as the Republicans are now for McCain, the Democrats and advisers at the time gave Clinton vastly disparate advice on how to take down Obama. It's an environment designed to foster disaster. Disaster is what we've seen. A well oiled campaign does not release a statement, double back on it, and then double back again. McCain's campaign has done this not just several times, but many times. More than anything else this hurts his campaign in the eyes of the most important voters at this stage, the undecided independents.

Clinton eventually grounded herself and moved on to thoroughly challenge Obama, but when she found her footing she had a good two months or more left to fight. McCain is down to three weeks with which to find balance, plant his feet and turn the election around. His last opportunity may be tomorrow's debate, after which it may be all but settled. A solid message to stand upon is required for McCain to win this election; If he fails to find consistency at the debate, his chances at establishing it thereafter are slim to none.

Oof

I just checked my 401k, and I've effectively broken even. I saw that because my employer generously matches my investment dollar for dollar to a point. Effectively they contribute 30% of what I do to my 401k.

Incidentally, with today's market drop I've just hit the 30% lost mark.

I've made the hard choice that I'm going to keep investing even in this time of crisis. I realize I'm just a drop in the pond, but if people like me who've invested so little pull out it won't help the people on the verge of retirement who just saw that dream fade.

I know I'd like to retire before I die, so I'd like to afford the same to those who've come before me. It's not much, perhaps a Pyrrhic gesture, but it's something I can do.

Pyramid Head

My first experience with the stock market was years ago in my father's "office". As I often did in fits of boredom I had invaded his space to see what he was doing. At the time he was looking at a web page with some measure of resignation. When I asked him what was up, he told me in his matter-of-fact, "life goes on" fashion that the other day he'd sold some stock he'd received as a bonus at work, but that the stock was up a dollar or so today which would have been another $500. Noticing my confusion, I got a brief lesson in the economics of the stock market.

In the following years I took an economics course, found out that my father's father had enjoyed investing in the market, and contemplated trying my hand at it. I was ultimately defeated by my lack of resources and fear. I watched the stock market go up and down without rhyme or reason, and that frightened me deeply. Matters which I don't understand do not scare me, but matters which I can't understand are outright terrifying. Trusting every dollar I had to such a beast was impossible.

Over the years I've picked up a better understanding of the system, but its fundamental principles bother me. It's obviously been on my mind a fair amount in recent days given the current economic crisis. The stock market is always topping the news, whether its about the latest drop on Wall Street or world markets, the presidential candidates stances on the issue, or the general knee jerk reactions people are having to the problems we face. EVer present are the tickers, the brokers and the news that yet another major bank is at risk.

So, as the Dow drops another 800 points, I pose the following question: What separates the stock market from your run of the mill pyramid scheme?

I'm not an economic powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination, but the fundamentals of how this works perplex and bother me. At the most basic level the stock goes up when people invest and goes down when people take back their investments. In principle this works fine so long as there's a constant increase in either the number of investors or the amount of money being invested. The obvious problem demonstrated by the Great Depression and perhaps the current situation is that once that assumption is broken the house of cards collapses.

This seems eerily reminiscent of the root cause of the credit crunch itself, where subprime mortgages were given out under the assumption that house prices would always go up. Once an assumption like that is broken the system breaks with it, taking down companies and victims in the process. We see this now as jittery investors begin to act in self-interest and pull their investments. I can't blame them for doing so, but it seems to illustrate perfectly the problem at hand; there's no benefit to being at the bottom of the pyramid.

So again, what separates the stock market from your standard pyramid scheme beyond its scope and reach? There is probably some fundamental mechanism I'm unaware of, some fact I'm ignorant of, but at face value It's difficult to see it as anything else.