It is strangely satisfying, to have a new harddisk. Actually, to be precise, I just got a new pair of external harddisks. I grabbed the Western Digital MyBook Mirror Edition. That unit is basically a pair of 1tb internal harddisks in an external enclosure, set to either RAID 1 or 0. Yes. That's 1 terabyte, or rather a pair of 1tb harddisks mirrored, to become a single 1tb backup unit. I recall having a 340mb harddisk not too long ago, so I think while 1tb looks huge now, it'll look quite puny in the years to come.
The primary purpose of an external unit is both to replace the harddisk that recently went bad, and to serve as a comparatively rarely accessed backup unit. To serve that purpose, it has to be quite steady. So when I spotted this RAID-ready external unit going at a good price, I was intrigued. While RAID 1 has a danger of faithfully reproducing errors across both harddisks, its perfect mirroring also means that if harddisk A dies, B will be able to take up the slack without killing off any of my stuff. That means my research and photos will be quite safe for now.
The darned thing's a brick, though it's delightfully black has an endearing blue light that matches the LEDs on my casing. Nothing much to say about it, except it's significantly slower than a pair of harddisks fitted internally. In fact, the ironic thing is that these two harddisks and the casing actually cost me less than purchasing two individual 1tb harddisks. Perhaps I will eventually figure that I'd pluck them out of the casing and fit them in my desktop. But for now, I do want external storage, so these will have to do.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Outliers
I'm currently reading Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. It is quite a fascinating book, which integrates some sociological theories to explain the structure of exceptional success. While I do not wholeheartedly support the premises of the hypotheses and question the generalizability of the data used to back the conclusions, I think it still does make for interesting reading and new perspectives on the social phenomena surrounding success.
I am particularly interested in what can change one's trajectory in society, and nudge people towards or away from success. Of the reasons, it does seem that the offspring of rich folk do have particular benefits, and that is an interesting but unhelpful observation: Not everyone is able to choose their backgrounds. However, it does seem that success is not just a matter of luck, but also of smarts. Terman's research on high IQ children and their development amply proved that high-IQ individuals are not necessarily able to become greats simply on the merits of their intelligence. There was a limit to how vanilla intelligence can push one upwards.
The other ingredient appears to be practical intelligence, or EQ or cultural savvy, or however one may want to call this other sort of intelligence. That is, the sense of entitlement which drives people towards desiring greater heights, and having the people skills to make that aspiration a reality. In fact, to some extent, EQ seems an adequate substitute for intelligence, given that one can simply persuade others to share the observations that the person is unable to come up with.
EQ is something that is usually not taught in school, and would actually be quite useful in the curriculum. However, a person who is all EQ and no IQ would not go far either, given that he/she is probably not going to be intelligent enough to spot opportunities as they arise. It seems that ultimately one just needs good-enough levels of both, as a foundation for the pursuit of success.
Besides the concept of success, the book also talked about culture. I think the idea of tolerance for ambiguity and Hofstede's Power Distance Index tie in nicely with the idea of strokes as the currency in Transactional Analysis. In fact, I believe it may be possible that the ambiguity tolerance and PDI serve as the score modifiers for stroke quotas. It can be expected that a society with high ambiguity tolerance will also have a low tolerance for overt actions. That means that positive strokes are not to be delivered in straightforward ways. This may mean larger numbers of subtle positive strokes. As for high PDI societies, stroke quotas are very likely much higher for superiors than in lower PDI societies. This represents a positive modifier.
The correct calibration of strokes can be one way to support people skills, or EQ. However, EQ itself is probably not taught because many of its precepts are quite tacit, and may not even be consciously learned. For example, knowing when to pull back in a conversation is often attributed to a "feeling", but is in reality a complex computation integrating observations of the other person's reactions. In all, I would say that a good way to calibrate strokes is simply through trial and error. When one pushes too far, one is likely to observe negative reactions from others. As these mental notes build up, one's calibration progressively improves.
This would evoke Gladwell's assertion of the 10'000 hour rule, whereby one becomes highly proficient at a skill after approximately 10'000 hours of farming skill points. It therefore stands to reason that simple social contact and attention can hone EQ just like that. It also explains why the social outcast types still have problems dealing with other people: the calibration is imperfect. This creates a vicious cycle that encourages avoidance of others, and preventing improvements in the calibration. Once that is achieved, along with the other factors mentioned and those that appear in Gladwell's book, one may finally have the actual formula for success. The caveat, of course, is that knowing the path to success does not imply an ability to achieve it.
I am particularly interested in what can change one's trajectory in society, and nudge people towards or away from success. Of the reasons, it does seem that the offspring of rich folk do have particular benefits, and that is an interesting but unhelpful observation: Not everyone is able to choose their backgrounds. However, it does seem that success is not just a matter of luck, but also of smarts. Terman's research on high IQ children and their development amply proved that high-IQ individuals are not necessarily able to become greats simply on the merits of their intelligence. There was a limit to how vanilla intelligence can push one upwards.
The other ingredient appears to be practical intelligence, or EQ or cultural savvy, or however one may want to call this other sort of intelligence. That is, the sense of entitlement which drives people towards desiring greater heights, and having the people skills to make that aspiration a reality. In fact, to some extent, EQ seems an adequate substitute for intelligence, given that one can simply persuade others to share the observations that the person is unable to come up with.
EQ is something that is usually not taught in school, and would actually be quite useful in the curriculum. However, a person who is all EQ and no IQ would not go far either, given that he/she is probably not going to be intelligent enough to spot opportunities as they arise. It seems that ultimately one just needs good-enough levels of both, as a foundation for the pursuit of success.
Besides the concept of success, the book also talked about culture. I think the idea of tolerance for ambiguity and Hofstede's Power Distance Index tie in nicely with the idea of strokes as the currency in Transactional Analysis. In fact, I believe it may be possible that the ambiguity tolerance and PDI serve as the score modifiers for stroke quotas. It can be expected that a society with high ambiguity tolerance will also have a low tolerance for overt actions. That means that positive strokes are not to be delivered in straightforward ways. This may mean larger numbers of subtle positive strokes. As for high PDI societies, stroke quotas are very likely much higher for superiors than in lower PDI societies. This represents a positive modifier.
The correct calibration of strokes can be one way to support people skills, or EQ. However, EQ itself is probably not taught because many of its precepts are quite tacit, and may not even be consciously learned. For example, knowing when to pull back in a conversation is often attributed to a "feeling", but is in reality a complex computation integrating observations of the other person's reactions. In all, I would say that a good way to calibrate strokes is simply through trial and error. When one pushes too far, one is likely to observe negative reactions from others. As these mental notes build up, one's calibration progressively improves.
This would evoke Gladwell's assertion of the 10'000 hour rule, whereby one becomes highly proficient at a skill after approximately 10'000 hours of farming skill points. It therefore stands to reason that simple social contact and attention can hone EQ just like that. It also explains why the social outcast types still have problems dealing with other people: the calibration is imperfect. This creates a vicious cycle that encourages avoidance of others, and preventing improvements in the calibration. Once that is achieved, along with the other factors mentioned and those that appear in Gladwell's book, one may finally have the actual formula for success. The caveat, of course, is that knowing the path to success does not imply an ability to achieve it.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Money Or Principle?
I got into a right interesting mess today. It's one of the messes that is typical of what I tend to do when half asleep: violate my own rules. Now, this was a matter of an item I had for sale, and I got some offers. Generally, I do not close a deal ASAP, because I should logically wait for a reasonable number of offers to come in before obliging myself to anyone. That is the logical thing to do, which I did not do, while muddled with sleepiness. It's a bit like being drunk, and this is what happened...
Person A contacts me with a low bid. Naturally, I am unhappy. Person B contacts me with an identical bid, but I thought he was person A because I was going by phone numbers and assumed they were the same due to identical amounts. A tells me that my pricing is bad because the general prices are lower. With this new information (it's true, BTW), I figure that person A's offer is fair. So I tell B that we've got a deal. We should meet up to trade sometime.
Of course, being half asleep, I wasn't really thinking straight at the time. I agreed to a price that was lower than I wanted to agree to. The correct (and usual) response I should have given was that I would think it over, instead of saying Yes. I figured that it was a screwy deal, so I asked my friend, who again offered me the exact same price. Now, between a friend and a stranger offering identical prices, I chose my friend. So now there are 3 people I basically obligated myself to. A and B (whom I mistakenly thought were the same person) and my friend. At this point, I realized A and B were different people, so I had to say no to B, because A agreed first and thus was taking priority over B. B wasn't very happy at this development.
C calls in with a higher bid than all 3. In my stupidity, I told my friend that the bid was higher, and asked him if he would reconsider the agreement. Of course, since he wanted the item, my friend relented. I had to turn down A, B and C as a result. Now I am in the unenviable position of basically flip flopping on a deal with my friend, and having to turn people down. Of the 3, B was still unhappy, and was very eager to close the deal, apparently at a higher price point than any of the whole bunch.
In the end, I figured that I had to turn B down no matter what, to avoid further flip flopping. Now the situation became an ethical dilemma: Would I stick to the newly negotiated higher price with my friend, or go for the financial gain and press my friend for it? After much consideration, I figured that the right thing to do would be to suck it up and deal with my friend at the initially agreed upon price (a deal's a deal).
The evaluation was pretty complex, for a simple situation stupidly turned complicated. In reality, the sum of money was small, and I did not actually need the difference. It was a matter of principle that I tried to maintain as high a profit margin as possible. The root of the matter was that I violated my usual rule not to agree to any deal too early, which was done in a moment of muddle-headedness.
Why would I have chosen to deal with my friend at the low price, despite having semi-closed deals with 3 other strangers? This is not necessarily a logical decision, given that I am sticking with my friend because he's a friend. That is, he would potentially provide more benefits in the future as a friend by preserving the relationship through the relatively charitable gesture. However, it is also possible that the first person I agreed to could also provide me similar benefits in the future. More importantly, a friendship may not turn to enmity over such a minor infraction, but it may become so with a stranger who has no vested interest in me. Also, I have no real guarantee that my friend would actually repay the gesture in kind at any point in the forseeable future. In the absence of more data, I had to settle with the friend, though it really was more of a leap of faith.
In sum, the wise thing to do would simply be to stick to my own rules, and deal with matters on my own terms. That means not settling on deals when I do not have to, and especially not when I am sleepy and prone to stupid mistakes. It is strange just how many times I violated my own rules to poor effect, but I do it anyway. When they say go with the gut, it's really a good thing to do. Bleh.
Person A contacts me with a low bid. Naturally, I am unhappy. Person B contacts me with an identical bid, but I thought he was person A because I was going by phone numbers and assumed they were the same due to identical amounts. A tells me that my pricing is bad because the general prices are lower. With this new information (it's true, BTW), I figure that person A's offer is fair. So I tell B that we've got a deal. We should meet up to trade sometime.
Of course, being half asleep, I wasn't really thinking straight at the time. I agreed to a price that was lower than I wanted to agree to. The correct (and usual) response I should have given was that I would think it over, instead of saying Yes. I figured that it was a screwy deal, so I asked my friend, who again offered me the exact same price. Now, between a friend and a stranger offering identical prices, I chose my friend. So now there are 3 people I basically obligated myself to. A and B (whom I mistakenly thought were the same person) and my friend. At this point, I realized A and B were different people, so I had to say no to B, because A agreed first and thus was taking priority over B. B wasn't very happy at this development.
C calls in with a higher bid than all 3. In my stupidity, I told my friend that the bid was higher, and asked him if he would reconsider the agreement. Of course, since he wanted the item, my friend relented. I had to turn down A, B and C as a result. Now I am in the unenviable position of basically flip flopping on a deal with my friend, and having to turn people down. Of the 3, B was still unhappy, and was very eager to close the deal, apparently at a higher price point than any of the whole bunch.
In the end, I figured that I had to turn B down no matter what, to avoid further flip flopping. Now the situation became an ethical dilemma: Would I stick to the newly negotiated higher price with my friend, or go for the financial gain and press my friend for it? After much consideration, I figured that the right thing to do would be to suck it up and deal with my friend at the initially agreed upon price (a deal's a deal).
The evaluation was pretty complex, for a simple situation stupidly turned complicated. In reality, the sum of money was small, and I did not actually need the difference. It was a matter of principle that I tried to maintain as high a profit margin as possible. The root of the matter was that I violated my usual rule not to agree to any deal too early, which was done in a moment of muddle-headedness.
Why would I have chosen to deal with my friend at the low price, despite having semi-closed deals with 3 other strangers? This is not necessarily a logical decision, given that I am sticking with my friend because he's a friend. That is, he would potentially provide more benefits in the future as a friend by preserving the relationship through the relatively charitable gesture. However, it is also possible that the first person I agreed to could also provide me similar benefits in the future. More importantly, a friendship may not turn to enmity over such a minor infraction, but it may become so with a stranger who has no vested interest in me. Also, I have no real guarantee that my friend would actually repay the gesture in kind at any point in the forseeable future. In the absence of more data, I had to settle with the friend, though it really was more of a leap of faith.
In sum, the wise thing to do would simply be to stick to my own rules, and deal with matters on my own terms. That means not settling on deals when I do not have to, and especially not when I am sleepy and prone to stupid mistakes. It is strange just how many times I violated my own rules to poor effect, but I do it anyway. When they say go with the gut, it's really a good thing to do. Bleh.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Another Harddisk Failure
It seems like another of my harddisks is on the brink of failure. This time, it is the Western Digital that I am using to archive my stuff. Fortunately, the critical stuff like photos are being redundantly backed up, so the losses there are minimal. Even now, the critical parts of the archive are being moved away before the harddisk dies for good.
Of course, this does make me wonder. I do believe that it is a good idea to redundantly back everything up, preferably on a harddisk. While it will undoubtedly fail as 4 of my own have so far, doing so affords a rather more convenient option than a stack of CDs, which will have to be slotted in one after another just to verify data integrity. However, I do wonder at the interestingly high rate of hardware failure. 4 harddisks seems like a rather low MTBF, though of course it can be attributed to the possibility that I use my computer rather more than many other people.
For future reference, my current method to back up the folders quickly while the harddisk is dying is to manually move all folders over one by one. This creates an individual copy dialog. Since it is expected that most if not all folders have some sort of major malfunction, the errors will be isolated to the folder's dialog instead of stopping the entire copy process. Granted, this method is still fairly destructive given that the harddisk is failing, and I expect that the reliability will be compromised later in the process. Thus, I proceed to copy the most critical elements first, and the less important ones later. In the event of truly critical data, it would probably be wiser to approach a data recovery specialist, but given the casual nature of my storage that is quite unnecessary.
Right now I feel somewhat fortunate that a computer fair is coming to town, and that will likely allow me to purchase replacement storage at a discount. The next decision is whether I should go RAID this time, or continue with manual backups. The problem with RAID is that if there were an error in copying somehow, it is not unreasonable to expect that the error be faithfully reproduced depending on the RAID array used. This will be something that I have to carefully consider for my next backup choice. Ah, well.
On a side note, the headphone port on my speakers appears to be dying as well. Only the bass notes play through it now, necessitating that I plug my phones directly into a splitter, instead of using that oh so nice extension. Now...are my speakers still under warranty...? Given the high failure rate, I do usually get my money's worth on warranties.
Of course, this does make me wonder. I do believe that it is a good idea to redundantly back everything up, preferably on a harddisk. While it will undoubtedly fail as 4 of my own have so far, doing so affords a rather more convenient option than a stack of CDs, which will have to be slotted in one after another just to verify data integrity. However, I do wonder at the interestingly high rate of hardware failure. 4 harddisks seems like a rather low MTBF, though of course it can be attributed to the possibility that I use my computer rather more than many other people.
For future reference, my current method to back up the folders quickly while the harddisk is dying is to manually move all folders over one by one. This creates an individual copy dialog. Since it is expected that most if not all folders have some sort of major malfunction, the errors will be isolated to the folder's dialog instead of stopping the entire copy process. Granted, this method is still fairly destructive given that the harddisk is failing, and I expect that the reliability will be compromised later in the process. Thus, I proceed to copy the most critical elements first, and the less important ones later. In the event of truly critical data, it would probably be wiser to approach a data recovery specialist, but given the casual nature of my storage that is quite unnecessary.
Right now I feel somewhat fortunate that a computer fair is coming to town, and that will likely allow me to purchase replacement storage at a discount. The next decision is whether I should go RAID this time, or continue with manual backups. The problem with RAID is that if there were an error in copying somehow, it is not unreasonable to expect that the error be faithfully reproduced depending on the RAID array used. This will be something that I have to carefully consider for my next backup choice. Ah, well.
On a side note, the headphone port on my speakers appears to be dying as well. Only the bass notes play through it now, necessitating that I plug my phones directly into a splitter, instead of using that oh so nice extension. Now...are my speakers still under warranty...? Given the high failure rate, I do usually get my money's worth on warranties.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
2012: How Not To End The World
I just watched 2012, and for once, I am going to be harsh on it. Granted, I was into it primarily for the special effects, which it was full of. Very nice. I love watching cities crumble to dust amidst frantic air-dodging action. Loads of plus points for that one.
However, I expected a lot more from an end-of-world movie. I am willing to overlook glaring omissions like the inevitable nuclear winter from a global seismic catastrophe so severe that it results in extreme tectonic plate shifts and global volcanic activity. The very least I expect is either the utter destruction of the earth, for example getting earth hurled into the sun or a black hole, or at least the complete elimination of all humans. That is the end of the world as I understand it...and clearly the movie did not deliver.
Now, I know there are many ways to survive global flooding. Especially one from crazy tsunamis when the earth's crust somehow manages to rupture enough to start flooding Mt. Everest. If the director and co really wanted to be implausible, the least they could do is come up with space evacuation and perhaps space living till the volcanic activities settled down. In fact, it would've totally beaten the idea of having modern Noah's ark style ships saving a few hundred thousand of the humans. Seriously...that the best you could do? Super ships built near Tibet using untold amounts of money? Everyone could have probably gotten by on bark boats and bamboo rafts while they're at it.
Of course, once again, it seems like everyone forgot about Africa. If the whole continent managed to be pushed up as high as they said in the movie, I would think that a whole lot of humans survived there. In fact, that would make Africa the richest continent in the entire world. Strangely enough, nobody seemed to notice or bother to check. Nor the rest of the USA that probably survived, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ok the list goes on, but I guess a rant has to stop somewhere. I'd say this movie gets a fail grade. 4/10. Most of the points came from the nifty special effects. The rest of it was end of world trash.
However, I expected a lot more from an end-of-world movie. I am willing to overlook glaring omissions like the inevitable nuclear winter from a global seismic catastrophe so severe that it results in extreme tectonic plate shifts and global volcanic activity. The very least I expect is either the utter destruction of the earth, for example getting earth hurled into the sun or a black hole, or at least the complete elimination of all humans. That is the end of the world as I understand it...and clearly the movie did not deliver.
Now, I know there are many ways to survive global flooding. Especially one from crazy tsunamis when the earth's crust somehow manages to rupture enough to start flooding Mt. Everest. If the director and co really wanted to be implausible, the least they could do is come up with space evacuation and perhaps space living till the volcanic activities settled down. In fact, it would've totally beaten the idea of having modern Noah's ark style ships saving a few hundred thousand of the humans. Seriously...that the best you could do? Super ships built near Tibet using untold amounts of money? Everyone could have probably gotten by on bark boats and bamboo rafts while they're at it.
Of course, once again, it seems like everyone forgot about Africa. If the whole continent managed to be pushed up as high as they said in the movie, I would think that a whole lot of humans survived there. In fact, that would make Africa the richest continent in the entire world. Strangely enough, nobody seemed to notice or bother to check. Nor the rest of the USA that probably survived, and the rest of the world for that matter.
Ok the list goes on, but I guess a rant has to stop somewhere. I'd say this movie gets a fail grade. 4/10. Most of the points came from the nifty special effects. The rest of it was end of world trash.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Fear Factor
I was reading this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091117/hl_hsn/fearless3yearoldsmightbetomorrowscriminals
It was about the correlation between a weakly inculcated fear response and the tendency towards criminal activities. That is, people with feeble fear responses were more likely to commit crimes later in life. Whenever I read this kinda stuff, I cannot help but feel that it is fishy. For one, causality is most certainly rather hard to establish in research on social phenomena.
Moreover, this is simply about fear and crime. It seems to neglect the other possible benefits of having poor fear responses, such as being able to overcome apprehension and thus exploiting opportunities that others deem overly intimidating. It can also mean the difference between freezing up and getting killed, and surviving a crisis.
I really do think it absurd that it is implied that fear is somehow key to a lawful society, and that it is desirable. Fear in reasonable amounts will indeed keep people in line and lead to a reasonably harmonious coexistence. However, excessive fear will lead to a timid and cowed populace that is easily manipulated by the strong. I do not think that desirable at all.
It was about the correlation between a weakly inculcated fear response and the tendency towards criminal activities. That is, people with feeble fear responses were more likely to commit crimes later in life. Whenever I read this kinda stuff, I cannot help but feel that it is fishy. For one, causality is most certainly rather hard to establish in research on social phenomena.
Moreover, this is simply about fear and crime. It seems to neglect the other possible benefits of having poor fear responses, such as being able to overcome apprehension and thus exploiting opportunities that others deem overly intimidating. It can also mean the difference between freezing up and getting killed, and surviving a crisis.
I really do think it absurd that it is implied that fear is somehow key to a lawful society, and that it is desirable. Fear in reasonable amounts will indeed keep people in line and lead to a reasonably harmonious coexistence. However, excessive fear will lead to a timid and cowed populace that is easily manipulated by the strong. I do not think that desirable at all.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Video Ads
It seems that massification is the current trend of media. Early visual media involved the leisurely painted paintings, which were added to by early photographic technologies, then digital photography. In fact, every mother's child seems to have a digital camera nowadays. As Walther Benjamin said, massification can lead to an erosion of the aura of a work of art. Where a carefully crafted photograph or painting has a powerful aura, upon reproduction, such works become increasingly blase.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Now, with beautiful pictures spewed everywhere, it is really unsurprising that people begin to seek out other media or different applications of the same media. Simply put, everyone is becoming desensitized. Even stock photos are marketed on microstock for a pittance. Some are even giving their works away for free, or simply in return for crediting.
Given the evolution of digital cameras, the movie mode is now becoming increasingly prevalent. It has in effect made high quality video recordings (that is, large sensor recordings) more accessible to the masses. While purists today say that ads will always be still images, one need only recall the comparative accessibility of the early daguerrotypes to figure that it is reasonable to anticipate the superseding of still imagery ads with moving images. And I do not mean on television, but also on the billboards out there, along with the large poster ads. 10 years? 20? Its time will come, and like the way digital took film over as the primary medium, I will not be surprised if videos took over still ads over time.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Terrorists Win
When I look back on how countries used to be before the days of the War On Terror catchphrase, I cannot help but feel that the terrorists have won. This may sound odd, since it is clear that massive military forces are being amassed in distant lands like Iraq and Afghanistan, thoroughly rooting out any "terrorists" they might find.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
However, one needs to recall what some said about terrorists nearly a decade back, that they were enemies of freedom. Well, Sherlock, it would seem to me that they had won already, then. Where the risks of terrorist incidents are likely no higher than before (those guys aren't gona take breaks or swing into action just 'coz we declared a war on them), there have been significant curtailments of freedom throughout the world in the spirit of preventing future terrorist incidents. The "prevention" part is dubious, in my opinion, given the huge numbers of security cameras everywhere. It seems improbable to impossible that their footage is being actively monitored. Likewise for internet controls and other forms of surveillance.
Even if they were, while the bad eggs are being watched, common folk are being surveilled as well. Worse yet, the jumpiness induced causes regular folk to become wary of others, especially if they act strangely or even take a common photo in certain areas now deemed sensitive. Granted, there is no definitive way to prove successful prevention, but it is most certainly clear that many freedoms are being taken away in the name of security. More alarmingly, those freedoms may never be returned, since it is sensible that we remain vigilant at all times as terrorism is a problem that is here to stay. Even as guns blaze and bombs go off all over the place, I'd say that the terrorists can pet themselves on their backs for curtailing freedom the world over. You've won, guys. Be happy.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
On Killing
I was told about a cat that got smooshed after someone hurled it off a building. That smarts, to be sure. I hate the idea of senseless killing. Especially of a creature that very likely did no harm to the perpetrator. Such a killing reeks of vicious premeditation, for it most certainly took some time for the person to take the cat up, then toss it out.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
I would love to say that it is the symptom of a sick society that breeds such people. A society where people feel the need to hurt and main other creatures, humans included. But that would likely be untrue. Where there are truly bad eggs out there, there will also be good people.
When I think back about my past, I guess I would say that I could relate to the killer back then. There is a certain excitement to the idea of killing. What would it be like? How do living things look when the life fades from their eyes? In a controlled, urban society, there are many imposed inhibitions on behavior. And there is always that lingering What If? It is, perhaps as some put it, the thrill of the hunt.
But now I guess I think differently. I have explored many strange avenues and tried out unusual things. I had my thrills wiping out entire ant colonies and popping the denizens one by one with a magnifying glass and the power of the sun. I saw roadkill and a cat that was run over and dying in front of me. I saw death, and it was beautiful. There was immense suffering, and then a moment of peace. That was enough. But ultimately, I figured that killing senselessly was just plain wrong. In killing, there is cruelty. Living creatures have a right to live. While there are times when a killing may be justified, I no longer think it right to slaughter a creature just to see what would happen.
Satan Worshippers?
Going to church is always a disturbing event for me. I see and hear things that greatly worry me. While singing hymns, I listened to the lyrics, and the connection was just downright alarming.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Now, it is commonly said that the Satan's other titles are light-bringer and morning star. Then I heard in the hymn's lyrics about praises sung to the morning star, which of course meant Jesus. Disturbing, but perhaps somewhat spurious. Perhaps it was a coincidence.
Then I recall the sacrament of the communion. Hmm...oddly enough, it involved the consumption of human flesh and blood. That was pretty alarming, because I remember Satan worshippers accused of doing the exact same things. Human sacrifice and cannibalism. Truly disturbing. But the plot thickens...
And here's the clincher: Most are familiar with the great rebellion in Christian mythology, whereby there was a rebellion by the angels and a whole bunch were thrown down. Now, when we think about worshipping a divine being-turned-human that is called the morning star and encourages people to eat human flesh and drink blood, that begins to sound suspiciously like a fallen angel.
It worries me, and really...I get pretty disturbed when I go to church at times. That is why I really would rather read my bible quietly during sermons. I feel safer that way.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
No Country For Old Men
I love both the novel and the faithful film adaptation of No Country For Old Men. On the surface (and a number of my friends seem unable to get beyond that surface), it's a brutal film about a ruthless, heartless assassin who goes after a guy who stumbles upon a great big bag of drug money. The sheriff goes after that assassin, even as the drug dealers and assassin go after poor Llewelyn Moss. Of course, since just about everyone who's intended to watch/read this story already have, I'll just spoil the story: Llewelyn dies in the end, and the assassin gets away. There. I did it.
Now, I find the story is really quite a tragic commentary about our times. It seems easy to think of Llewelyn as the somewhat dishonest but otherwise innocent common folk, the sheriff Ed Tom as the good guy and Anton Chigurh the assassin as the baddie. However, of all the characters, I find Chigurh the most fascinating. He is not so much evil, as he is purely rule-driven. Ed Tom is the helpless old timer who reminisces of the good old days, but ultimately he's a broken man who cannot face up to the realities of a society going morally downhill. Llewelyn is just really quite a sideshow in that he just wants to get away with his money, and is ruthless in his own selfish money-loving ways.
While Ed Tom laments how things have turned ugly and simply gives up pursuing Chigurh in the end because he realizes that he's facing a force he simply could not defeat, Chigurh holds strong to his rules all the way to the end. Chigurh operates in a simple logic: He gets the job done. To get the job done, he kills anyone who gets in the way of his job. However, sometimes some people are in the way, but may or may not adversely affect the execution of the task, so Chigurh may or may not kill those people. To decide that, he does one of two things: flip a coin, or if he's sure the person will keep quiet, have the person swear to silence.
I think it is easy to assume that Chigurh is evil precisely because he's such a rule follower. Yet there seems to be little malice in what he does. He does not kill someone just because they're annoying (there's one lady in the story who was, but he did not kill her because she was not a significant impediment and because it was more trouble than she's worth). He does not kill out of hatred (Llewelyn threatens Chigurh at one point). I think he is disturbing and labeled evil simply because he has no emotional investment whatsoever in that killing. In a way, perhaps, he is something like Spock. And perhaps people have really hard times with characters like that: they are...alien.
Now, I find the story is really quite a tragic commentary about our times. It seems easy to think of Llewelyn as the somewhat dishonest but otherwise innocent common folk, the sheriff Ed Tom as the good guy and Anton Chigurh the assassin as the baddie. However, of all the characters, I find Chigurh the most fascinating. He is not so much evil, as he is purely rule-driven. Ed Tom is the helpless old timer who reminisces of the good old days, but ultimately he's a broken man who cannot face up to the realities of a society going morally downhill. Llewelyn is just really quite a sideshow in that he just wants to get away with his money, and is ruthless in his own selfish money-loving ways.
While Ed Tom laments how things have turned ugly and simply gives up pursuing Chigurh in the end because he realizes that he's facing a force he simply could not defeat, Chigurh holds strong to his rules all the way to the end. Chigurh operates in a simple logic: He gets the job done. To get the job done, he kills anyone who gets in the way of his job. However, sometimes some people are in the way, but may or may not adversely affect the execution of the task, so Chigurh may or may not kill those people. To decide that, he does one of two things: flip a coin, or if he's sure the person will keep quiet, have the person swear to silence.
I think it is easy to assume that Chigurh is evil precisely because he's such a rule follower. Yet there seems to be little malice in what he does. He does not kill someone just because they're annoying (there's one lady in the story who was, but he did not kill her because she was not a significant impediment and because it was more trouble than she's worth). He does not kill out of hatred (Llewelyn threatens Chigurh at one point). I think he is disturbing and labeled evil simply because he has no emotional investment whatsoever in that killing. In a way, perhaps, he is something like Spock. And perhaps people have really hard times with characters like that: they are...alien.
Monday, October 26, 2009
A Strong Military
The mighty military is a critical factor to deal with global warming. As we all know, global warming is a horrible, horrible problem. The global temperatures rise, making everyone feel mighty uncomfortable, and killing some people and plants and animals while it's at it. The polar ice caps will melt, causing the sea levels to rise. The rising sea levels will cause available land to shrink, and flood many food producing fields into oblivion. There will be famine, population pressures and yes...war. Not to mention irreversible climate change.
Now, let us avoid this really nasty scenario. Everyone shall now cut production, stop making new babies and really...just consume less in general. Maybe that will help with the carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases and perhaps stop global warming. Maybe. Or maybe not. But either way, nobody seems very happy about doing all that on a maybe. What they do know is that the world's heating up and they don't wana lose out to everyone else.
The good news is that the earth finds its own equilibrium at one point or another. The bad news is that humanity may be badly screwed as a result. But that's ok, because the earth will be fine. So now we know that we're on a nice merry one way trip to warfare hell, and we need to be ready. We need stronger militaries. The mightier the better. Why, some may ask? Before shooting them, inform them that that's exactly how we're gona take the land from them so they die but we survive. Might. Makes. Right. Man I love equilibrium.
Now, let us avoid this really nasty scenario. Everyone shall now cut production, stop making new babies and really...just consume less in general. Maybe that will help with the carbon emissions, other greenhouse gases and perhaps stop global warming. Maybe. Or maybe not. But either way, nobody seems very happy about doing all that on a maybe. What they do know is that the world's heating up and they don't wana lose out to everyone else.
The good news is that the earth finds its own equilibrium at one point or another. The bad news is that humanity may be badly screwed as a result. But that's ok, because the earth will be fine. So now we know that we're on a nice merry one way trip to warfare hell, and we need to be ready. We need stronger militaries. The mightier the better. Why, some may ask? Before shooting them, inform them that that's exactly how we're gona take the land from them so they die but we survive. Might. Makes. Right. Man I love equilibrium.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Those Precious Shrew Dodgers
I love watching the reactions of humans. Especially around rodents. The reaction is fascinating precisely because of the aversion showed despite the patent harmlessness of the said creature. It's small, fuzzy and...probably spreads disease. No more than any other mammal might however, so that's probably not a defining rodent trait.
Now, when I was on my way home with my mom, we noticed a dead shrew in the middle of a walkway. Someone probably stepped on it and killed it on the spot. Poor creature. Nonetheless, I figured it would be an interesting opportunity in observing human reactions, so I had mom stand around to watch the reactions of others when they saw the poor creature.
A pair of schoolgirls approached and noticed the shrew. They paused. After chittering somewhat in alarm, they mutually decided to gingerly tiptoe past on the extreme edges of the pavement so as to maintain maximum distance from the rodent.
Another girl came by, noticed the shrew, then promptly switched to a different path to go where she intended.
Yet another noticed the body, then walked past it as if nothing happened. Pure win!
Now, when I was on my way home with my mom, we noticed a dead shrew in the middle of a walkway. Someone probably stepped on it and killed it on the spot. Poor creature. Nonetheless, I figured it would be an interesting opportunity in observing human reactions, so I had mom stand around to watch the reactions of others when they saw the poor creature.
A pair of schoolgirls approached and noticed the shrew. They paused. After chittering somewhat in alarm, they mutually decided to gingerly tiptoe past on the extreme edges of the pavement so as to maintain maximum distance from the rodent.
Another girl came by, noticed the shrew, then promptly switched to a different path to go where she intended.
Yet another noticed the body, then walked past it as if nothing happened. Pure win!
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Earth Was Cold
Sometimes we ponder weighty things. Things like…what’s the meaning of life? Why are we here? I would propose that life simply had no meaning, and that it was quite the accident, but that’s not gona sit well with too many people. So let’s consider an alternative: The earth created humans.
Yup. Great, guys. You now have a purpose. You were created…and life now has meaning. What meaning might that be, you ask? The earth was cold. Goodness…what a silly sort of reason, many might think. But one also needs to be humble and remember that one cannot comprehend the infinite wisdom of the earth. The earth had darned good reasons for doing what it did.
The evidence is clear. The earth is cold and was cold. There are polar ice caps, and there was an ice age sometime in the past. Cold cold cold. Then the earth decided to create humans. Humans help by inducing global warming, though they are thoroughly convinced they’re living their “lives”, whatever that might mean. Obviously, the humans have managed to fulfill their purpose. Why? Well…they’re still alive, are they not? The earth would have wiped them out ages ago if that were not the case.
There we have it. Purpose for living. And faith that one day, global warming will kill all humans, or the earth will. It all works out. And don’t worry…the world will do just fine without all the pesky humans on it.
Yup. Great, guys. You now have a purpose. You were created…and life now has meaning. What meaning might that be, you ask? The earth was cold. Goodness…what a silly sort of reason, many might think. But one also needs to be humble and remember that one cannot comprehend the infinite wisdom of the earth. The earth had darned good reasons for doing what it did.
The evidence is clear. The earth is cold and was cold. There are polar ice caps, and there was an ice age sometime in the past. Cold cold cold. Then the earth decided to create humans. Humans help by inducing global warming, though they are thoroughly convinced they’re living their “lives”, whatever that might mean. Obviously, the humans have managed to fulfill their purpose. Why? Well…they’re still alive, are they not? The earth would have wiped them out ages ago if that were not the case.
There we have it. Purpose for living. And faith that one day, global warming will kill all humans, or the earth will. It all works out. And don’t worry…the world will do just fine without all the pesky humans on it.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
What can I say. This show is a Tarantino, with all that entails. Violence, black humor, inappropriately humorous moments, loads of graphic gore. The usual fare. While some will beg differ about this show because of its lack of moral depth, not being Jewish enough, etc etc, I am weighing this show on its entertainment value. And that value, in my opinion, is exceptionally high.
I dare say that Hans Landa totally stole the show for this one. Arguably, he's The Bastard, while everyone else are mere Basterds. There is something to a highly refined, sharp, witty and downright cruel Nazi who really is nowhere near as crude as the good ole Basterds. Of course, there is always something to a bunch of soldiers going around terrorizing poor ground pounders with reputations like...The Bear Jew.
For once, this show is not one that has its moments. The show is one long long 2 1/2h moment. In a good way. I especially liked Shosanna, that gorgeous lady with an iron will. There was a scene in the show featuring her, that seemed like something torn straight out of a noir film. A well-executed one, at that.
Heck, even the swastika-carving trope was pretty much as good as the Joker's face scar gag back in Batman. Truly, this is a memorable show, though the ending is perhaps quite surprising for those familiar with history. Of course, we did not quite come to watch a documentary. Nonetheless, the show gets a nice solid 9/10 from me.
I dare say that Hans Landa totally stole the show for this one. Arguably, he's The Bastard, while everyone else are mere Basterds. There is something to a highly refined, sharp, witty and downright cruel Nazi who really is nowhere near as crude as the good ole Basterds. Of course, there is always something to a bunch of soldiers going around terrorizing poor ground pounders with reputations like...The Bear Jew.
For once, this show is not one that has its moments. The show is one long long 2 1/2h moment. In a good way. I especially liked Shosanna, that gorgeous lady with an iron will. There was a scene in the show featuring her, that seemed like something torn straight out of a noir film. A well-executed one, at that.
Heck, even the swastika-carving trope was pretty much as good as the Joker's face scar gag back in Batman. Truly, this is a memorable show, though the ending is perhaps quite surprising for those familiar with history. Of course, we did not quite come to watch a documentary. Nonetheless, the show gets a nice solid 9/10 from me.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
STALKER: Clear Sky
Once in a while it's entirely possible to encounter a game that looks great in the early stages, and quickly turns out to be one that's been rushed to market from midgame onwards. Clear Sky is one such game.
At first glance, it is a truly atmospheric game. A total graphical revamp over its predecessor. The graphics are stunning, the levels and familiar areas simply look better than they used to, and hell...they even threw in the really nice idea of lethal Zone energy emissions, which one needs to dodge in order to stay alive. Now that is how (sucky) life in the Zone really ought to be.
Then comes the minor niggles. Bullet ballistics seem just wrong...the guns are somewhat underpowered. Then it turns out you can quicksave while nowhere near a safe area while an emission is coming, theoretically preventing game progress as you load a game moments before the emission kills you. Better yet, you're the only one hiding, because for some reason every other soldier can ignore the darned things. Oh, and did I mention that the safe zone could (unfortunately) be in the middle of an enemy base? Well...if the emission doesn't get you, the enemies probably would. Blagh.
Right, then comes the ending. The levels towards the end become somewhat...troublesome. Few stores are available for resupply and dumping off looted equipment. Your armor's probably torn to shreds at this point, and it's really a pain to get back to some base a few maps away. Then comes the clincher: The finale is one long and meaningless firefight.
Now, I am generally pretty happy with firefights. They're pretty exciting on average and can be quite fun. It just gets old when it becomes a series of clear the area of enemies, followed by clear the area of enemies, followed by clear the area of enemies, then we give you new gun and ammo, so shoot the final dude!
That one really sucked. For one, there's a carrying weight limit in the game. I don't know why I suddenly have a really nifty gun and ammo, but then 'coz of the weight limit...I can't actually move. Better yet, enemies are happily shooting at me. That sucks. Well...since everyone's shooting at me...who am I supposed to kill, again? Unlike the first STALKER, this one really really took the fun out of the ending. No alternative endings, nobody's really sure why I gota take the guy out, and it really took me a while to figure what I was supposed to do with the sucker. Way to kill a game that had so much potential. They should outlaw games rushed to market. :s
At first glance, it is a truly atmospheric game. A total graphical revamp over its predecessor. The graphics are stunning, the levels and familiar areas simply look better than they used to, and hell...they even threw in the really nice idea of lethal Zone energy emissions, which one needs to dodge in order to stay alive. Now that is how (sucky) life in the Zone really ought to be.
Then comes the minor niggles. Bullet ballistics seem just wrong...the guns are somewhat underpowered. Then it turns out you can quicksave while nowhere near a safe area while an emission is coming, theoretically preventing game progress as you load a game moments before the emission kills you. Better yet, you're the only one hiding, because for some reason every other soldier can ignore the darned things. Oh, and did I mention that the safe zone could (unfortunately) be in the middle of an enemy base? Well...if the emission doesn't get you, the enemies probably would. Blagh.
Right, then comes the ending. The levels towards the end become somewhat...troublesome. Few stores are available for resupply and dumping off looted equipment. Your armor's probably torn to shreds at this point, and it's really a pain to get back to some base a few maps away. Then comes the clincher: The finale is one long and meaningless firefight.
Now, I am generally pretty happy with firefights. They're pretty exciting on average and can be quite fun. It just gets old when it becomes a series of clear the area of enemies, followed by clear the area of enemies, followed by clear the area of enemies, then we give you new gun and ammo, so shoot the final dude!
That one really sucked. For one, there's a carrying weight limit in the game. I don't know why I suddenly have a really nifty gun and ammo, but then 'coz of the weight limit...I can't actually move. Better yet, enemies are happily shooting at me. That sucks. Well...since everyone's shooting at me...who am I supposed to kill, again? Unlike the first STALKER, this one really really took the fun out of the ending. No alternative endings, nobody's really sure why I gota take the guy out, and it really took me a while to figure what I was supposed to do with the sucker. Way to kill a game that had so much potential. They should outlaw games rushed to market. :s
Friday, October 09, 2009
A Great Day
Today will go down in Fenrisian history as a great day. One of the great days amongst great days, but a great day nonetheless. As is traditional, every other less great day of great days will be less desirable than this one, so I can safely bet that someday will not be quite as great and thus perpetuate the myth of...well...jinxing when talking about great days.
But that is irrelevant. I must first record what greatness happened on this great day of greatness. First, and most important to me, I bought a flash unit. Not just any flash unit. The high end wireless capable version that I've been drooling over. Now, being the stereotypical student photographer wanabe on a budget, I really couldn't go right out there and buy the danged thing. Simply beyond my means. So I settled for second best: A secondhand flash, only that it's the wireless-incapable version of it. But when I met the seller...it turns out he only had the higher end one. The mind boggled. How much? Only a bit more. SOLD! And now, by sheer accident...here the flash is. It is...beautiful.
The second is comparatively minor, but no less important. My thesis research has finally been approved. That means I can finally get to work on the data collection process, though at this point my data collection's already complete. Oh wait. Well, at least they did approve the latest version of my questionnaire, which I slipped to them. Ok I did not just say that. I totally played by the book, for it is the Fenrisian way.
Right, then. And then my friend's package arrived. At least a notice of the package. I'm not sure what it is, so I'll reserve irrationally intense joy for that fine moment tomorrow.
Unlife...is...good...
But that is irrelevant. I must first record what greatness happened on this great day of greatness. First, and most important to me, I bought a flash unit. Not just any flash unit. The high end wireless capable version that I've been drooling over. Now, being the stereotypical student photographer wanabe on a budget, I really couldn't go right out there and buy the danged thing. Simply beyond my means. So I settled for second best: A secondhand flash, only that it's the wireless-incapable version of it. But when I met the seller...it turns out he only had the higher end one. The mind boggled. How much? Only a bit more. SOLD! And now, by sheer accident...here the flash is. It is...beautiful.
The second is comparatively minor, but no less important. My thesis research has finally been approved. That means I can finally get to work on the data collection process, though at this point my data collection's already complete. Oh wait. Well, at least they did approve the latest version of my questionnaire, which I slipped to them. Ok I did not just say that. I totally played by the book, for it is the Fenrisian way.
Right, then. And then my friend's package arrived. At least a notice of the package. I'm not sure what it is, so I'll reserve irrationally intense joy for that fine moment tomorrow.
Unlife...is...good...
Monday, October 05, 2009
Final Fantasy Tactics A2
I was playing Final Fantasy Tactics A2 on my DS for a couple days, and I think I know what it is that really irks me about the game: Lose conditions (laws) that are not directly controlled by the player. FFTA2 has an interesting gameplay system carrying over from the previous version. In a battle, players are required to adhere to certain "laws", which may be something like...you can't use fire, lightning or ice weapons/spells in the battle.
At first glance, FFTA2 improved on the previous game with the graphics, and from making the game more forgiving when you break those laws. That is, until I realized that they added new laws in. It's understandable that the laws can force you into a certain style of gameplay (that's where Tactics come in: reconfiguring your characters) but some laws are just stupid.
For example, there is a law against targeting distant units. Well that's easy. I'll simply not equip ranged weapons and refrain from casting spells. Or at least doing so while directly adjacent to an enemy. Until you realize that a critical hit knocks an enemy back by one cell, so you're counted to have targeted a distant unit simply by having a random critical (a good thing, usually). Ok that's annoying enough. Then you realize that some enemies can confuse or charm your characters, causing them to act randomly or otherwise attack your own characters. That means that Mage over there will likely cast Fire on one of your own guys, while standing far away. Oops...that means the law's broken, too. There's another law that's like this: No knockback. Same drill with the criticals.
I think these design hiccups are quite sufficient to destroy the enjoyment of an otherwise really polished game. I love the new graphics, the transition between lands is smoother and basically everything else is really nicer than the older version. Something to take note of, I guess, as the recurring problem of the laws can really ruin one's day.
At first glance, FFTA2 improved on the previous game with the graphics, and from making the game more forgiving when you break those laws. That is, until I realized that they added new laws in. It's understandable that the laws can force you into a certain style of gameplay (that's where Tactics come in: reconfiguring your characters) but some laws are just stupid.
For example, there is a law against targeting distant units. Well that's easy. I'll simply not equip ranged weapons and refrain from casting spells. Or at least doing so while directly adjacent to an enemy. Until you realize that a critical hit knocks an enemy back by one cell, so you're counted to have targeted a distant unit simply by having a random critical (a good thing, usually). Ok that's annoying enough. Then you realize that some enemies can confuse or charm your characters, causing them to act randomly or otherwise attack your own characters. That means that Mage over there will likely cast Fire on one of your own guys, while standing far away. Oops...that means the law's broken, too. There's another law that's like this: No knockback. Same drill with the criticals.
I think these design hiccups are quite sufficient to destroy the enjoyment of an otherwise really polished game. I love the new graphics, the transition between lands is smoother and basically everything else is really nicer than the older version. Something to take note of, I guess, as the recurring problem of the laws can really ruin one's day.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Taking Woodstock
I got to watch Taking Woodstock today! Granted, I do not believe it to be at all a realistic depiction of the attitudes of the times, but it was a jolly good effort at providing an idealized interpretation of the legendary music festival.
I know that some critics have complained that the movie was unrealistic, boring at parts and totally missed out on the music part of the music festival. I do agree with that, but I am more inclined to evaluate the movie on the fact that it's intended as a comedy. I think the movie's got a little of everything to represent the key events happening around the time.
I did find it funny in parts, hilarious in others and just plain confusing in many bits. But I felt the confusion actually added to the believability of a massive music festival being pulled together in dribs and drabs. It also felt like a coming of age story, whereby the protagonist discovered who he really was and struck out to finally live his own life. No more mama's boy there. A touching thing, really.
Hmm...was it realistic? Having a transvestite (or was it transsexual?) being so easily accepted by everyone, and a bit of nice openly gay kissing being taken in stride? Probably not even at Woodstock. A Jew being quite openly gay and eating "extra" bacon on his "usual"? Not terribly likely. A home boy taking his first hit of drugs? Not a very good influence either, though I doubt this movie's for the kids. The token 'Nam and Korea vets? I think those who watched will know precisely what they feel about those characters.
Overall, besides the really awesome depiction of the festival itself (in overview) and that iconic muddy hill, I'd say the movie has just what the people need: A myth. A myth that depicts a golden era that never was, but that can serve as an ideal of tolerance that we can all work towards. Ok probably not the orgies and drugs. heh. Or maybe. I don't know.
I'd say...7.5/10? It's not a great movie, but then I'd say it's worth watching if you like this kinda thing.
I know that some critics have complained that the movie was unrealistic, boring at parts and totally missed out on the music part of the music festival. I do agree with that, but I am more inclined to evaluate the movie on the fact that it's intended as a comedy. I think the movie's got a little of everything to represent the key events happening around the time.
I did find it funny in parts, hilarious in others and just plain confusing in many bits. But I felt the confusion actually added to the believability of a massive music festival being pulled together in dribs and drabs. It also felt like a coming of age story, whereby the protagonist discovered who he really was and struck out to finally live his own life. No more mama's boy there. A touching thing, really.
Hmm...was it realistic? Having a transvestite (or was it transsexual?) being so easily accepted by everyone, and a bit of nice openly gay kissing being taken in stride? Probably not even at Woodstock. A Jew being quite openly gay and eating "extra" bacon on his "usual"? Not terribly likely. A home boy taking his first hit of drugs? Not a very good influence either, though I doubt this movie's for the kids. The token 'Nam and Korea vets? I think those who watched will know precisely what they feel about those characters.
Overall, besides the really awesome depiction of the festival itself (in overview) and that iconic muddy hill, I'd say the movie has just what the people need: A myth. A myth that depicts a golden era that never was, but that can serve as an ideal of tolerance that we can all work towards. Ok probably not the orgies and drugs. heh. Or maybe. I don't know.
I'd say...7.5/10? It's not a great movie, but then I'd say it's worth watching if you like this kinda thing.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
DIY Light Tent
I was reading up on creating that awesome sauce DIY light tent from the strobist site (http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/2006/07/how-to-diy-10-macro-photo-studio.html), then built one myself. Used correctly, it has some truly sweet results:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Meredith_Nichols/E3/50/Old%20tech%20shoot/P9278018.jpg
Unfortunately, it does have some drawbacks when shooting shiny stuff. For example, the sides and the top may be reflected in the objects. One option is to simply change the angle of the objects to avoid the reflections. However, that may limit the angles possible for the shoot.
To solve that, selectively blocking off the windows may help. Another option is to move the light source to de-emphasize the reflections. Of course, the perfect world solution is to simply get a light tent equivalent without the cardboard that comes with the territory.
I was reading a book on constructing DIY photographic equipment and it seems that the fiberglass rods used to make kites is remarkably good when coupled with the light diffusing material. Of course, I currently have no access to that material, and am a bit skeptical about just how budget the rods might be...
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a335/Meredith_Nichols/E3/50/Old%20tech%20shoot/P9278018.jpg
Unfortunately, it does have some drawbacks when shooting shiny stuff. For example, the sides and the top may be reflected in the objects. One option is to simply change the angle of the objects to avoid the reflections. However, that may limit the angles possible for the shoot.
To solve that, selectively blocking off the windows may help. Another option is to move the light source to de-emphasize the reflections. Of course, the perfect world solution is to simply get a light tent equivalent without the cardboard that comes with the territory.
I was reading a book on constructing DIY photographic equipment and it seems that the fiberglass rods used to make kites is remarkably good when coupled with the light diffusing material. Of course, I currently have no access to that material, and am a bit skeptical about just how budget the rods might be...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)