Accessorizing

I am not a big fan of clothes, shoes and handbags. When it comes to those, I usually go with the utilitarian option as far as possible. As for tonsure, I am inclined to go with the simplest, most manageable cut. But things are somewhat different for me when it comes to accessorizing. I like accessories, and I believe the flavor of the month is...chokers. Or slave rings. I can't really decide at this point. Probably both?

Accessories are really quite remarkable. Small things that can say so much in and of themselves. I get warm pretty easily so there goes the option of layering, which does pretty much cut out a goodly number of options for making the statement of the day. On the other paw, I also do get cold so having thin materials in the office would be a bad idea. Yet a well-placed accessory can make all the difference between drab, and somewhat-drab. I like to have a dash of creepy in my stuff, or failing which at least some wolf or dark imagery. It's just a personal preference.

Necklaces, bracelets, chokers, rings, you name it. It's all pure magic. Now, while I am busy gushing over accessories, it reminds me that I have a chaos emblem enroute. What better symbol to wear than a nice spiky emblem that also happens to be the chosen symbol of the Chaos Space Marines. We have a lot in common, methinks. Along with self-destructive tendencies like wearing something that just might cause fatal injuries if one falls in the wrong direction...

A Wedding

I was at my cousin's wedding today and I did my part as the MC. Unfortunately, I slipped up somewhat on the initial presentation, and that is not something I am pleased with at all. Regardless, the rest of the ceremony seemed to proceed smoothly, so hopefully that was the only major issue with my rather sad performance.

Regardless, I had a good chat with the photographer, and it was nice having a bunch of friendly relatives (and soon-to-be relatives) attending. Overall, we did have a pretty good time from the fetching of the bride in the morning to the evening's dinner. Regrettably, I had scant opportunity to get photos taken, at least in part because of the presence of a dedicated photographer and my reluctance to be the designated GWC. The other reason of course was related to my role of the day, and the fact that I was not particularly prone to excessive wakefulness during daylight hours.

I did manage to sneak home for a nap in the afternoon, and I guess it did help somewhat. At the very least I managed to keep myself away from the pit of sleep-deprived grumpiness. It's really little to do with the quantity of sleep I get at night; I think that much is quite sufficient. It's a lot to do with the poor overall quality of sleep. Ah, well.

Time Management

Now that I have started full time work, I find that time management is ever more critical in my life. While it is very nice to be home after sundown, there are only so many hours of the night I can burn before having to head to bed in preparation for the next day. As mentioned before, I do get pretty grumpy from sleep deprivation.

Time management is best accomplished by mapping out the hours spent, and how each hour should be allocated. This can be done by first accounting for how each hour is already spent, and where there are too many hours spent on certain things where others are neglected. I already find that my gaming time is being encroached upon, and something needs to be done about that. Unfortunately, I also find myself without the luxury of spending the past-12mn hours doing what I usually do. It is a delicate balance.

While some may regard the weekends as precious, I would disagree. In fact, the only real use for the weekends would be to settle personal admin, such as warranty claims or postage, yet one would do well to recall that such services are typically closed on weekends to begin with. The other stuff like watching movies would be poorly served by the weekend, considering how obscenely crowded the cinemas can get. In fact, it would be far better to watch movies after work, then get home. Perhaps it does help that I generally feel better in the hours after work, than the hours spent at work itself (however enjoyable work itself may be). The night is young, and it is always good.

Wrongness Of Killing

Sometimes I do think that the perception of wrongness of killing is more socially constructed than it is an actual "instinct" of humans. For practical reasons, it is obviously beneficial that humans can be kept in check so that they are not perpetually at one anothers' throats. Otherwise, society would not be able to function, with its associated deleterious effects.

This sense of wrongness can be seen in how differently people treat the idea of killing for food. A city dweller well insulated from the blood and gore of meat can easily forget just what goes into the daily steak. They are horrified when shown the truth of their sustenance. Yet, humans less insulated from the roots of food have little room for such distaste: it is a matter of eating or perishing. Many do have reverence for the food, because of the difficulty of obtaining it, and showing disrespect might draw the ire of the powers that be which supply them with it.

Where the instinctual might come in is when the sense of empathy is reached with the subject, be it another animal (a pet, perhaps) or another human. This emotional attachment lends killing a strong sense of wrongness not because killing is intrinsically so, but because doing so would induce a great sense of loss. Similar urges exist when one knows that a killing would result in hurting other humans whom one feels empathy with.

These of course go out the window in any life or death situation. Where one is reduced to the lowest common denominator, survival, it is not uncommon to encounter humans at their worst. While some do become heroic in such situations, many others seem to become monstrous instead. There seems to be little to suggest that, in the absence of higher thought processes, humans are primarily inclined to be reluctant to kill. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. Yet, the average person will very likely not wish to express those views, for various reasons.

Appropriate Responses

One of the many things that constantly bugs me about dealing with humans is the matter of responding appropriately to others' conduct. Specifically asshole conduct. Take for example a hypothetical situation whereby one walks past another, and one shoves the other out of the way.

Of course, the first urge that would come is my bloodlust. It would feel incredibly good to respond in kind. Yet, that is clearly not a very constructive response and I do largely have my bloodlust under control. The other option would be to voice out displeasure over the incident. This, too, may draw unnecessary aggression. It is also a more constructive option than the first considering that the shove may well have been accidental.

Then there's the option of walking away. This is the least palatable response, but is also the most logical. After all, one little shove is hardly capable of causing real damage. Other more confrontational responses may well result in injuries on either side. Unfortunately, it also entails a certain loss of prestige (a show of weakness, to some) and more importantly it is a sort of quiet acquiescence to such unpleasant conduct thus by implication rendering the conduct somewhat acceptable.

The considerations hold true to just about every kind of perceived provocation, and it is frankly very difficult to know which response is most appropriate. All have consequences, and really...my personal bent would be to just walk away. I really don't like to have to bother with humans, and unlike most animals, humans seem incapable of leaving others alone at times. Pride largely does not factor into the equation, especially since the perceptions of others weigh very little on me. Then again, there's always that constant nag to sate my bloodlust once in a while, and it isn't always easy to resist.

How To Train Your Dragon

This show is win. Yup...first line of the review pretty much sums it up. I like the narrative, the action is fluid. The show banks more on character development and dynamic action as opposed to eye-poppingly good graphics, epic lighting and Middle Earth scenery.

Regardless, Dragon somehow managed to juggle between empathy, aggression and humor. In my opinion, they did a bang up job about it. And more importantly, they decided to have a nice epic boss fight as opposed to the way too common epic battle scene. It is refreshing to have a good solid fight with minimal casualties, and a good solid underpinning of humans learning to live in harmony with nature (or rather...animals).

Admittedly I do have a strong bent towards liking any show that promotes harmony with animals/nature, and I also love it when the underdog grows up to be something great other than a plain old veteran warrior. There's plenty of opportunity for forming an illusory empathic link with our intrepid protagonist and his fearsome little dragon, and with a sufficiently grueling boss battle thrown into the mix.

It is a rare show that really does make me feel good about having watched it, and this is most certainly one of them. To the fellas who are reading this and haven't already watched this on the big screen, I say...get your ass in gear and watch it already. 9.5/10.

Iron Man 2

I watched Iron Man 2 and well...it's a wee bit over the top. That's not to say it's something I did not quite expect out of an Iron Man flick. Let's consider for a moment the possibility of a particle accelerator built in a basement just to create an entire new element, or the likelihood of a Russian basement dweller building an arc reactor based suit. Not terribly likely, and certainly somewhere beyond the realm of believability. Of course, this is Iron Man we're talking about, so believability goes out the window anyway.

There's the usual expected Iron Man humor, with Stark being that egotistical fella that he is, and quite the garage technician. I do wonder at the fascination with garage tech. Maybe it's got something to do with just how many great big firms that started off as garage tech. Hmm. Regardless, there's oodles of user interface coolness and epic deployments of the Iron Man suit. Iron Man suit in a briefcase, anyone?

Regardless, the show's chock full of special effects, Stark's egotism and the fast paced action of the Iron Man suit does not disappoint. Especially when War Machine is thrown into the mix. I really do wish they would refrain from introducing new compounded supervillains, though. It was bad enough seeing Deadpool in that other movie... Overall, though, the story does seem kind of weak alongside the special effects fest, with trying to loop in the Avengers and SHIELD while not developing either story particularly strongly. Link up movie alert.

I'd say the movie deserves maybe 7.5/10. It'd be better if there was just more War Machine action, and perhaps some elaboration on Stark's mental state.

Light

I love the light. It is beautiful. Not. No, seriously...bright light hurts the eyes like the dickens, and direct sunlight just stings bigtime. There's a good reason I stick to the shadows as far as possible. It's probably healthier that way. At least for me, that is.

I guess I'd also count as a big power saver when it comes to monitors because I wind down the brightness all the way. Environmentally friendly indeed. Regardless, it does prevent quite a bit of eyestrain from unnecessary retina searing and the associated headaches.

Regardless, I shall return to my classic gripe of office hours. While the office is full of great funny people and is overall an enjoyable place to work at, having to get up in the morning and stay up all day does take its toll. Indeed, despite coming back from a long day's work, I actually wind up feeling pretty refreshed once the witching hour comes cackling by. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for my overall wakefulness during the day.

Behold The IPS

Yup I finally succumbed to the dark side (kicking and screaming, I might add). I abandoned my holy CRT in favor of the hellishly pathetic LCD. Forgive me, for I have sinned, and I now know that I am beyond redemption. Unfortunately, so was my CRT. Redemption can be such a fickle thing.

Now, why on earth would I get an obscenely expensive 24" IPS monitor that is just insanely oversized? Because. Actually it's because that's probably the only monitor that can match my CRT for color fidelity, refresh rates, input lag (sorta, but not really.) and toss in some added dynamic range to boot.

There are TN alternatives out there for easily half the price. Do not think that I was not tempted by their sheer cheapness. Unfortunately, given their comparative color accuracies and the wonderfully sad tonal depth I've seen in the samples at the store, I knew that I would simply have to settle for the best that LCDs currently have to offer.

Of course, given my usual luck with electronics and all things technological, the first model I got just so happened to have a faint but clearly distinguishable color shift from the left to the right. In a monitor of IPS stature, that really is completely unacceptable. I'd talk about all the electronics that died in my presence and my tendency to build up static charges, but that's another story for another day. Right now, it's all about waiting for new stock to arrive so that my bad new monitor may be swapped for a good one.

The Power Of Experience

In game design, what distinguishes a good designer from a great designer is not creativity. In fact, creativity is a prerequisite for the gig in the first place. If one is not creative, they should not be in the line.

The distinguishing factors are in fact influence and experience. A veteran and a newbie may well come up with the exact same creative idea and flesh out every spec that the idea needs in order to get implemented. Yet more often than not, the veteran's idea will come out closer to the original vision than the newbie's. This is where influence and experience come in.

As the adage goes, a designer's only as good as her relationship with the team. If the team hates the designer, they will be quite well incentivized to not implement exactly what the designer wants. It may not be an unprofessional attempt to sabotage the project since they would suffer for it as well, but it would come in the form of dislike for the designer bleeding into dislike for the idea in general. Alternatively, the sheer reputation of a designer might hold some sway, but that will only go so far if everything else about them is downright repulsive. No influence, no implementation. 'nuff said.

Then comes the experience. Even if the designer's absolutely influential, it does not mean that the team will be able to get the ideas out at first pass. Misimplementation is just one possible problem, but easily spotted. If it doesn't match, it's wrong. The other is having an inferior foundation, which is by far a more insidious issue. It is very easy to charge towards milestones while paying little heed to the pipeline and tools used for future iterations. Eventually, the inferior foundation will make itself known, as the even slightly increased delay between iterations will add up over time. It must be noted that few things are ever done right on the first pass, and every additional delay in each iteration will be multiplied by the dozens if not hundreds or thousands of iterations before a feature is finally shipped.

Considering this, it should be clear that while talent will be what distinguishes equally experienced and influential designers, it plays a much smaller role than what many beginner handbooks seem to be pushing. Not everyone can be exquisitely talented, but anyone who pays attention to what is going on can become somewhat more influential and certainly more experienced.

The Nature Of Guilt

Guilt is only possible when the nature of the guilt-inducing act can be comprehended. By definition, someone who does not know that she did wrong is quite unlikely to feel guilty about the wrongdoing. That much is common sense.

However, it is also possible for highly guilt-inducing acts to move to a scale that defies comprehension. The result is the same: people who would feel guilty about a lesser act may well feel minimal guilt at the far greater act that is beyond their comprehension.

Take for example the guilt of murder. Most normal people would probably feel quite guilty over murdering someone. When it turns to mass murder, however, it quickly goes beyond human comprehension. It seems quite unlikely that getting say...10 million people killed is going to weigh on the conscience 10 million times stronger than a single murder would. It is simply beyond what can be comprehended. In fact, it may be possible that the number itself becomes so immense that guilt is practically diluted to nothingness. Where massive numbers of people get slaughtered, it becomes ever easier to shirk the responsibility and project it on others.

An intentional killing is a murder. A billion intentional killings is a statistical reduction.

Scaling Corruption

Corruption simply does not scale terribly well. If power corrupts, I'd rather have absolute power. It's not as if I'm gona be pure either way. And I certainly would not approve of being absolutely powerless.

Of course, corruption itself is not quite so simplistic. It is often subtle, and not something that people would likely notice at first. Just a selfish act here, a little betrayal there...nothing major. Yet later on, as one becomes accustomed to committing little corrupt acts, the ramifications of corruption become less grating on the psyche. Guilt falls away, and it becomes easier to go down that slippery slope. What's it to me if I did one more teeny corrupt act...

Ultimately, the corruption switches from being unintentional to possibly intentional. The acts are now clearly beneficial, though possibly at the expense of others. Benefit becomes an end in itself. Yet it does seem like the marginal guilt reduces as one proceeds down the path of corruption. The first act could've required quite some deliberation, but as one becomes sufficiently corrupted, previously unthinkable acts could become practically second nature.

Acceptance Of The Disabled

It does seem, sometimes, that people with handicaps are better accepted. Of course, it may well be an illusory acceptance, borne of pity and the strength of social taboos. Specifically, the taboo against bullying the weak...or disabled.

On second thought, perhaps a more accurate description of the state of the disabled people would be a state of tolerance rather than acceptance, since they are not so much accepted as they are tolerated. Life certainly isn't plain sailing.

Yet, it is precisely because of these adversities that the disabled are given special leeways that are just not granted to those perceived as normal. It seems that people are unwilling to provide for the special needs of unique individuals unless there's a really compelling reason to do so. Strangely enough, those special treatments are often readily granted to children and animals. Double standards abound.

Vampirism Sucks

Pun intended. It is strange how people can develop a fascination with vampiric creatures. If one considers the practical implications of vampirism, it really does not seem terribly appealing at all. Of course, one caveat will be that I do not regard Twilight-style vampires as vampires at all. They're really more like a bizarre variety of blood drinking Superman. 'nuff said.

Anyway yes, the usual perks should be considered. Superhuman strength, senses, speed, etc etc. Yes we get it, they're superpowered. And immortal...sorta. Cool beans, eh? But then we gota consider the disadvantages as well. Given the fatal allergy to sunlight, it really is no fun to be out at least half of any given day. Perhaps more, if one's in a temperate region. Then there's the inability to effectively enjoy any mortal food. You'd imagine that tasting blood (however tasty, it's effectively got one flavor) for an eternity would not be very nice at all. Not to mention one doesn't actually have a death to look forward to: you're gona have to get off'ed or off yourself at some point if you're sick of existence.

Quite a raw deal, imo. Of course, there is a common mythical alternative. Which is the werewolf. A lot sweeter, seeing as they're all nice and furry and cuddly, can eat regular food and live pretty much a darned long time. Not to mention they're of the superpowered variety, too. Of course there's the same issue of frenzying from time to time, and being quite allergic to silver. It's still a comparatively minor tradeoff.

Given the comparison, I do wonder why people seem to favor vampires over werewolves. It does not compute. Maybe it's to do with the scruffy looking presentation of stereotypical werewolves in comparison to the Victorian refinement of vampires. Come on, wolvies, beef up the PR already. Geez.

Collapse Of Law

Vigilantism exists whenever rule of law is perceived as being inadequate in some way. Perhaps it is an underfunded and/or corrupt police force, or laws that are not agreeable to some people. Simply put, the activities exist for very much the same reason black markets do: to fill a void left by the authorities.

One thing that does get me thinking is exactly when does a vigilante (if ever) have the right to do something righteous despite the righteous act being outlawed due to omission or intention. Taking the example of Batman (again), the Gotham City law has a blind spot whereby certain criminally insane people are not being put to death despite repeatedly escaping and causing the deaths of innocent people. Would it ever be right for Batman to kill them?

Of course, we have the popular perception consideration that takes into account the fact that vigilantes already operate outside the law and are somewhat feared by the people. Vigilantes starting to kill would turn public perception against them. Yet this neglects the point that there are worse things than vigilantes killing small numbers of murderous individuals as opposed to the criminally insane killing large numbers of innocents. Would people choose the lesser evil, or would they continue to support their legal system riddled with loopholes?

Batman's Dilemma

Batman seems on the surface to be exceedingly foolish, perpetually incarcerating homicidal maniacs who invariably go free and proceed to wreak havoc on yet more innocents. Yet, there is the claim that were he to simply kill them, he would be no better for in willingly taking their lives he simply becomes a murdere: very much like one of them.

The utilitarian argument of killing one to serve the needs of many does seem to provide a solution, albeit one that is somewhat disturbing in its implications. Genocide comes to mind. Despite this, there is a niggling doubt about Batman's actions, since his solution does not seem terribly good either.

This may be explained by his motivations, which are actually rather selfish. It does appear to be a case of wanting to push the guilt of killing over to the maniacs, whom he in turn repeatedly punishes. He clearly decided that indirectly killing others through inaction is not criminal in any way, even though he already knew from past experience that incarcerating them would only lead to the deaths of more innocents.

In Batman's case, it would actually be a clear cut case of people not worth saving. It is a case of possibly saving 1 person in exchange for the assured death of 100. It is no longer about saving 1 person, but sacrificing 100 to possibly save 1. In real life, such decisions are of course considerably harder to make, seeing as how the average person is generally not quite as predictable.

MC Sandwich

I am writing this as a documentation of my use of multicoated optics to enhance the performance of vintage camera lenses. A common problem old lenses face is flare and other aberrations resulting from the limited capabilities of primitive coatings. Hypothetically, introducing multicoated optics in the front and rear of the optical path would improve image quality somewhat. The extent of the effect is unknown, and may vary from lens to lens.

I tested this theory on a cheap Makinon 400mm f6.3 optic by placing a well coated Hoya HD filter in front, and using the Olympus EC14 teleconverter behind it. Before using the MC optics, flare was objectionable and the image appeared to be soft due to extensive optical aberrations. After adding on the optics, the image quality was greatly improved and the lens combo could render passable results.

Trying again on the Olympus 300mm f4.5 (a non-MC optic), there was a small but noticeable amount of CA and subtle flare in the images when shot wide open. After the introduction of MC optics, CA and flare completely disappeared. This was unexpected. Of course, being no expert in optical design, I'd expect there are explanations for how/why this happens; besides the obvious ability of MC optical glass to resist flare and the teleconverter's ability to collimate light.

It is expected that similar combinations may be used on other legacy optics to similar effect, and may provide a way to rejuvenate old lenses. However, further experimentation is necessary before it can be established exactly which optics respond best to the treatment. Initial findings suggest that a relatively fast lens is required in order to maintain a usable level of light transmittance for general photography.

Hitting The Swamps

Trudging around on a mangrove boardwalk doesn't sound like something most people would like to do on any particular day, especially not on Good Friday. Well...that's precisely what I did.

Today was a Good Friday indeed, seeing as how many wonders we managed to behold during the short excursion. It was a largely unplanned trip, so we arrived at the mangrove just as the tide was coming in. Not only did we get to briefly witness the mangrove as it usually was at low tide, we got to see the water trickling then rushing into the bog. We even got to see the fruit of the nipah palm for real. At this point, the crabs crawling about suddenly decided to climb some trees, with some crabs reaching pretty much head height. It's probably not just for forage, but also to avoid the deadly monitor lizards.

Then there were the birds, and the occasional archer fish. The egret/heron family birds were present, as were oodles of kingfishers. As the trip drew to a close, I noticed a large bird landing to peck at the fruit hanging from a palm tree. It turns out the bird was a pied hornbill and its mate. Truly rarities, and awesome to behold. What better way could there be to spend a Good Friday, than to appreciate the wonder of the stinking bog.

Limits Of Randomness

Purely random item spawns is a method often used in game design to provide a variety of loot for players. This is intended to let players experience a sense of discovery and anticipation every time they play a level. It is like Christmas all over again.

Unfortunately, random loot has its limitations. Even when loot is balanced towards player levels and game difficulty, sometimes the desired loot simply will not drop. For example, a swordsman may wind up with loads of awesome mage staves while finding lousy to mediocre swordsman equipment. This may be tenable in games where it is intended for players to trade with one another for better loot, but it is plain irritating in single player experiences.

Take for example Dawn of War 2. Loot is randomized so my Devastator squad may never get the high end heavy bolters or their usable equivalents in Terminator armor. A possible solution to this would be to subtly weight loot drops according to fielded troops. For example, having a Devastator squad on the field will automatically grant me a +3% chance of getting Devastator drops. This value may need to be modified in order to make the drops still feel random, but will result in sufficiently high good drops to keep the players happy.

On a separate note, loot must be available for looting. DUH! I am still peeved about levels ending immediately after killing the boss creature, often preventing me from picking up that nice looking wargear that was just dropped. Talk about waste of effort. If loot cannot be automatically retrieved at the end of missions due to balance issues, the least they could do is provide a small window period for players to retrieve the items...

On The Jews And Chinese

The Jews are purported to be unusually successful. Perhaps disproportionately so. They are industrious and thrifty, which are sometimes attributed to their unusual success. Yet, it seems that the Chinese share such values, and are never reported to be quite as successful. By success I mean things like becoming rich, holding fine professions, being awarded Nobel prizes (excluding Obama, if he were Jew). At risk of sounding racist, I think there is (on average, perhaps, though I have no precise idea of where the true average lies) one key difference between the two peoples: their attitudes towards education.

For a Jew, education is an end in itself. It is valued by its own virtue and seen as something worthy to be sought. Self-improvement, intellectual inquiry, formal education are all seen as family treasures. Even the religion-culture encourages intellectual discussions as to the nature of the religion itself. There is also a willingness to take risk, to try out an opportunity when it presents itself. Combine this with the business savvy from generations of commercial enterprise, and you have a winning formula.

Chinese, on the other hand, are also a trading people. They work hard and are thrifty. However, education is a means towards an end. And that end is economic gain. If it comes to the crunch, between obtaining more formal education/self improvement/performing intellectual inquiry and getting the butt out there to earn money, it seems that earning money wins hands down. The culture itself is not largely in favor of intellectual inquiry. The business savvy of past generations counts for little, because it has become allowed to stagnate. There is little motivation for risk-taking, because that would adversely affect stability and in all likelihood damage the income stream.

True, exceptions do exist, whereby there are unsuccessful Jews and highly successful Chinese. However, blind chance would have it that the Chinese and their incredible population would have likely churned out some incredible successes. Yet, by proportion, this is not so. In the presence of a Jewish attitude towards learning in general, the learned person is by far more likely to be able to spot opportunities in the first place, followed by the willingness to take risk. That is an approach that can lead to success. For a Chinese, however, even if the opportunity is spotted, chances are that it would not be attempted unless it's a sure-win situation (which tends to wind up as a scam, instead).