Sometimes I wonder if you ever get to a point in your life where you're not surprised by anything at all. When some earth-shattering event occurs, do wise old people shrug their shoulders at the happening, as though it was expected?
I am continually amazed at humanity's capacity for self-destruction. Most recently I have had the opportunity to observe this in my daughter Zoe, who is now seven months old. She is crawling and pulling herself up on things, and getting into things.
Of course it's not things that are safe, oh no. Does she go for the cabinet with the pots and pans? No, the one with the dangerous cleaners, of course. Does she spend time playing with her own feet? Of course not - there are wires to put in her mouth, and electrical outlets to investigate. There are heavy books to pull off of the coffee table.
And oddly to me, one of the things that is the most innocuous actually terrifies her: the springy doorstops. I guess it's the noise they make. She also hates the noise of clanging pots and pans. And the vacuum cleaner.
Another thing that amazes me is how quickly she's learned what 'no' means. When we see her crawling towards something, we say 'no.' She stops, looks back, and you can almost hear the gears turning. Should I turn back? Or should I go onward. Sometimes she goes on, and then we have to pick her up and move her, and of course the waterworks start.
The sad thing is I had foreknowledge, having watched the children of friends and my own niece and nephew. So I don't know why I'm so surprised, other than the typical human response which says, "That won't happen to me."
Perhaps that's part of how wisdom develops - realizing it can happen to you.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
How Much Dumber Can We Get?
As a nation, I mean.
Today the Attorney General of the United State, Eric Holder, announced that he's going to try five of the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York, just a few tens of miles from where I live.
Excuse me if I don't jump with joy. Like many Americans, I cannot understand someone who wants to treat terror as a kind of crime. It isn't a crime - it's an act of war. Whether it was the first attack on the World Trade Center, the kidnappings in Iran in 1979, or Oklahoma City in 1996 - terror is war.
I realize many people out there think that humanity is mostly good - that people are born sort of OK and are then ruined by society or their environment. And perhaps that is why they view terror in the same category of human offense as DUI, child abuse, and rape. I think this worldview is tragically flawed, but I have neither the eloquence nor the patience to get into it. Suffice to say this kind of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.
I'm not clairvoyant, but this seems like a bad move on the administration's part. Holder said he would not have made the move if he didn't think he could get successful convictions on all five of the prisoners. Yet I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering how that's going to happen when most of the evidence won't be admissable in court because it was obtained outside the justice system's normal rules.
On a positive note, at least this administration is finally doing something. These guys stopped being useful informants long ago, and the fact that President Bush kept them in a prison, feeding them until they got fat, instead of walking them off a plank is just inexcusable.
Today the Attorney General of the United State, Eric Holder, announced that he's going to try five of the 9/11 co-conspirators in New York, just a few tens of miles from where I live.
Excuse me if I don't jump with joy. Like many Americans, I cannot understand someone who wants to treat terror as a kind of crime. It isn't a crime - it's an act of war. Whether it was the first attack on the World Trade Center, the kidnappings in Iran in 1979, or Oklahoma City in 1996 - terror is war.
I realize many people out there think that humanity is mostly good - that people are born sort of OK and are then ruined by society or their environment. And perhaps that is why they view terror in the same category of human offense as DUI, child abuse, and rape. I think this worldview is tragically flawed, but I have neither the eloquence nor the patience to get into it. Suffice to say this kind of thinking is what allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place.
I'm not clairvoyant, but this seems like a bad move on the administration's part. Holder said he would not have made the move if he didn't think he could get successful convictions on all five of the prisoners. Yet I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering how that's going to happen when most of the evidence won't be admissable in court because it was obtained outside the justice system's normal rules.
On a positive note, at least this administration is finally doing something. These guys stopped being useful informants long ago, and the fact that President Bush kept them in a prison, feeding them until they got fat, instead of walking them off a plank is just inexcusable.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Tyranny of the Small Hands
The other day Victoria and I went shopping for her father. He wanted a point-and-shoot camera for Christmas - not a difficult task. So we went to Best Buy and started looking at the two cameras they had.
I say two because, even though there were maybe fifteen different models from all different manufacturers, they were almost all the same size - too small. There was only one (the one we bought - a Canon of some sort) that was large enough for adults to use, and that only just barely.
What's the story here? The last time I went to buy a camera, it was my camera, which sort of sits in between point-and-shoot and a low end SLR. It is plenty big enough for adult hands, and features controls that are fairly simple to use. Those middle range cameras don't even exist anymore.
To be fair, the Canon also has simple controls, as I'm sure the others do. The problem is they all seem made for child sized fingers. Or specifically, Japanese teenage girl fingers. At least that's the impression I got from picking them up and trying them myself.
This makes no sense to me, and seems to be one of those times when the marketing departments at each of these firms got in bed with the engineers. Engineers love to push the boundaries. They love to go to the extremes. In the case of electronic devices, that means smaller. Apparently, the tiny-brained marketers seem to have agreed, and thus we have products for sale in America that are not made for Americans.
I think that's stupid. They would sell way more cameras if they'd make them just a bit bigger - say 5-8% in overall dimensions - and make the controls slightly bigger as well. That would certainly make these devices more comfortable for larger folks to use.
I mean I can't even imagine how a pro football player or someone who works with his hands for a living (say, a lumberjack or a fisherman) is supposed to operate one of these devices. I can barely do it, and though I have long fingers, they are fairly thin.
You know what'll happen, though. Someone will try to "fix" this and make a dumbed-down, featureless camera with giant buttons that looks like it was made for two-year-olds.
And that's equally stupid.
I say two because, even though there were maybe fifteen different models from all different manufacturers, they were almost all the same size - too small. There was only one (the one we bought - a Canon of some sort) that was large enough for adults to use, and that only just barely.
What's the story here? The last time I went to buy a camera, it was my camera, which sort of sits in between point-and-shoot and a low end SLR. It is plenty big enough for adult hands, and features controls that are fairly simple to use. Those middle range cameras don't even exist anymore.
To be fair, the Canon also has simple controls, as I'm sure the others do. The problem is they all seem made for child sized fingers. Or specifically, Japanese teenage girl fingers. At least that's the impression I got from picking them up and trying them myself.
This makes no sense to me, and seems to be one of those times when the marketing departments at each of these firms got in bed with the engineers. Engineers love to push the boundaries. They love to go to the extremes. In the case of electronic devices, that means smaller. Apparently, the tiny-brained marketers seem to have agreed, and thus we have products for sale in America that are not made for Americans.
I think that's stupid. They would sell way more cameras if they'd make them just a bit bigger - say 5-8% in overall dimensions - and make the controls slightly bigger as well. That would certainly make these devices more comfortable for larger folks to use.
I mean I can't even imagine how a pro football player or someone who works with his hands for a living (say, a lumberjack or a fisherman) is supposed to operate one of these devices. I can barely do it, and though I have long fingers, they are fairly thin.
You know what'll happen, though. Someone will try to "fix" this and make a dumbed-down, featureless camera with giant buttons that looks like it was made for two-year-olds.
And that's equally stupid.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Initial Thoughts on Forza 3
So I've been playing Forza 3 for about four days now. I'm already up to Level 30, where the game gifts you with the amazing Bugatti Veyron 16.4. That's right. No need to buy the $1.4 million credit supercar.
While that's fun and all, this iteration of Forza has managed to delight and frustrate. It is now the sixth or seventh console generation. Video games have been under serious development for almost thirty years. "Simulators" like Forza and Gran Turismo have been undergoing the same development for at least a decade.
Yet little has changed. It's kind of pathetic, really. The developers seem to treat these games as little more than virtual test drives. They trumpet their success with physics engine this and polygon count that - yet they've overlooked basic details that clash with their claims of realism.
I understand the desire to crack the simulator barrier and open up the game to more casual players who can be intimidated by ultra-realistic racing. That's fine. But Gran Turismo did that with its arcade mode - a system that has been copied right down to today. So that 'excuse' is just stupid.
So what has changed for the better? Well, for starters the Forza programmers have finally managed to catch up with Gran Turismo 2 and get the physics of rear-wheel drive correct. I never played Forza, but in Forza 2 any unmodified rear-drive car like a Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, or Nissan 300ZX would instantly spin out when taking a corner with just the tiniest amount of extra throttle. That always bothered me, as I've driven plenty of rear-drive vehicles and they simply don't handle like that. I could understand it being the case if one had a 450 bhp Supra on stock tires, but bone stock? The result of this mayhem was that no one would drive a pure rear-driver in a race. They would only use front-drivers or all-wheel drive. It was ridiculous, and I'm glad they finally fixed it.
Secondly, they've upped the polygon count of the tracks and the cars. That's pretty nice, but I would rather have had more cars on the track - say, 12 instead of 8. But the tracks are breathtaking. It's like you're actually there, and that's pretty awesome.
Thirdly, and this is probably the only true breakthrough development of the game, there is much more subtle communication about how the car is behaving than ever before. From tiny screen shakes to excellent rumble control, the cars feel more alive than ever before. It's difficult to get the feel of driving a car at the limit with just a game controller, but the Forza guys have managed to do it. As the virtual car approaches the limit, it begins to complain just like it would real life. Little cues like a slight shudder in the steering wheel or a subtle shift in the seat have been translated into code and applied to the gaming experience. It's really quite amazing.
Unfortunately, that's about it on the newness front. The Microsoft boys are touting the new in-car view as this major breakthrough. Sorry, the original Need for Speed did that way back in the mid-90s. And Need for Speed: Shift does it better anyway. It feels like they just tacked it on at the end. The driver's hands never even leave the steering wheel!
Another "improvement" that was really kind of a no-brainer and the industry should have figured out back with Gran Turismo 2 is the ability to load upgrades along with car settings. Any player could tell you it's stupid to load up a car's settings and then have the game tell you that such-and-such parts need to be added. Why couldn't the game simply add them itself, and if some of the parts needed to be purchased, give me the price and let me choose whether I want to buy them or not? Well, in Forza 3 we can finally do that. Halle-freakin'-lujah. That it's taken the Forza guys three iterations to figure this out shows just how little innovation and creativity exists in the industry today.
There are other problems, as well. As I said earlier, it's the sixth (or depending how you count) seventh console generation. Things like clunky menus should be behind us. While Forza 3 is better than its predecessor (half the game loads to the hard drive so it's not so slow switching menu options), it still manages to underwhelm me with its sheer stupidity and clunkiness.
Part of the reason I play simulators is to be able to "drive" cars that I'd never be able to in real life. I also like to compare cars. I own a Cobalt SS Supercharged. And I like to have virtual drive-offs between it and cars like the Acura RSX and Honda Civic Si. Now, Forza has a fun option for that called hot-lapping, where I pick my car, pick my track, then go race alone against the clock. That's wonderful, fantastic, I love it.
But when I want to race another car on the exact same track, I have to exit the track, wait for the menus to load, back out of the track menu, select another car, re-select the track, wait for it to load, then begin playing.
I can't possibly be the only one who thinks that is incredibly stupid. Why can't we just leave the track loaded and allow me to select a different car? I realize I'll still have to wait a little bit to load the car physics and all that. But that would be WAY better than the rigamarole above.
But it gets worse. Sometimes I like to drive the same car, but at different spec levels (Forza has a cool system called the Performance Index that has different classes from F to S and beyond). One would think that I could simply load different spec levels for the same car while at the track. But no. Forza sees that as an error, and kindly asks you to set the car up BEFORE entering the track. That's just stupid.
While I'm complaining, I might as well register another gripe that's been bothering me since Gran Turismo 3. Why do I always have to race the A.I. opponents in the same cars in the same order? It's stupid. Under Forza 3's Freeplay option, one would think one could set up a race any way one wanted. But no. Let's say I pick a B-class car to race, and I chose Quick Race. First of all, it's only one lap, which is stupid. Why not let the user pick the number of laps? But secondly, while I admire the computer's ability to pick cars that are in the B-class for me to race against, why can't I pick cars from my garage and let the A.I. drive those?
Let's face it. Even on "expert," the A.I. simply cannot beat me if I have a B-500 and they only have a B-461. Why not let me give the A.I. a fighting chance and have them drive my highly modified cars? That would make for a real interesting race.
Recently Game Informer and other video game media have wondered how the industry can breathe fresh life into the simulator world. Games like Grid and Need for Speed: Shift attempt to answer those questions by shaking somethings up, but they took away the most important part of the simulator - the ability to buy and modify my own stable of cars. Idiots.
Now, to me it seems like a no-brainer. "User-generated content" is all the rage, after all. I've outlined above several very simple ways to breathe fresh life into the simulator crowd - things that would probably be regarded as "revolutionary" by the media. Shows what they know. This kind of stuff should have been making its way into the genre starting with Gran Turismo 3, or maybe the fourth one at the worst.
Now I know Forza's graphics creation thing is fantastic, and that's wonderful and all. But would it really be that hard to add the the suggestions above, and maybe a few others? Surely the programming is not the issue. If it is, that's just sad.
No video game has ever failed by giving gamers what they want in a well-executed, highly polished package. However, whole franchises have sunk (I'm thinking of From Software here) by refusing to change and attempting to dictate gameplay to the gamer. I'm not saying Forza and Gran Turismo are doomed to that fate. But they could be if the industry doesn't wake up and sprinkle a little creativity into these things.
If I wrote for Game Informer, I'd give this game a 7. If I worked for G4 TV, a 3. It deserves those scores for failing to innovate, and worse, trying to pass off "innovations" that happened a long time ago as true breakthroughs. Boo. That said, I'll still play the crap out of it, and love it, because there's nothing better out there. And that's just sad.
PS - they've taken steps forward and backward in the aural department. Cars sound better overall, yet the engine sounds don't change with modification - a staple in the genre. That's just stupid.
While that's fun and all, this iteration of Forza has managed to delight and frustrate. It is now the sixth or seventh console generation. Video games have been under serious development for almost thirty years. "Simulators" like Forza and Gran Turismo have been undergoing the same development for at least a decade.
Yet little has changed. It's kind of pathetic, really. The developers seem to treat these games as little more than virtual test drives. They trumpet their success with physics engine this and polygon count that - yet they've overlooked basic details that clash with their claims of realism.
I understand the desire to crack the simulator barrier and open up the game to more casual players who can be intimidated by ultra-realistic racing. That's fine. But Gran Turismo did that with its arcade mode - a system that has been copied right down to today. So that 'excuse' is just stupid.
So what has changed for the better? Well, for starters the Forza programmers have finally managed to catch up with Gran Turismo 2 and get the physics of rear-wheel drive correct. I never played Forza, but in Forza 2 any unmodified rear-drive car like a Toyota Supra, Mazda RX-7, or Nissan 300ZX would instantly spin out when taking a corner with just the tiniest amount of extra throttle. That always bothered me, as I've driven plenty of rear-drive vehicles and they simply don't handle like that. I could understand it being the case if one had a 450 bhp Supra on stock tires, but bone stock? The result of this mayhem was that no one would drive a pure rear-driver in a race. They would only use front-drivers or all-wheel drive. It was ridiculous, and I'm glad they finally fixed it.
Secondly, they've upped the polygon count of the tracks and the cars. That's pretty nice, but I would rather have had more cars on the track - say, 12 instead of 8. But the tracks are breathtaking. It's like you're actually there, and that's pretty awesome.
Thirdly, and this is probably the only true breakthrough development of the game, there is much more subtle communication about how the car is behaving than ever before. From tiny screen shakes to excellent rumble control, the cars feel more alive than ever before. It's difficult to get the feel of driving a car at the limit with just a game controller, but the Forza guys have managed to do it. As the virtual car approaches the limit, it begins to complain just like it would real life. Little cues like a slight shudder in the steering wheel or a subtle shift in the seat have been translated into code and applied to the gaming experience. It's really quite amazing.
Unfortunately, that's about it on the newness front. The Microsoft boys are touting the new in-car view as this major breakthrough. Sorry, the original Need for Speed did that way back in the mid-90s. And Need for Speed: Shift does it better anyway. It feels like they just tacked it on at the end. The driver's hands never even leave the steering wheel!
Another "improvement" that was really kind of a no-brainer and the industry should have figured out back with Gran Turismo 2 is the ability to load upgrades along with car settings. Any player could tell you it's stupid to load up a car's settings and then have the game tell you that such-and-such parts need to be added. Why couldn't the game simply add them itself, and if some of the parts needed to be purchased, give me the price and let me choose whether I want to buy them or not? Well, in Forza 3 we can finally do that. Halle-freakin'-lujah. That it's taken the Forza guys three iterations to figure this out shows just how little innovation and creativity exists in the industry today.
There are other problems, as well. As I said earlier, it's the sixth (or depending how you count) seventh console generation. Things like clunky menus should be behind us. While Forza 3 is better than its predecessor (half the game loads to the hard drive so it's not so slow switching menu options), it still manages to underwhelm me with its sheer stupidity and clunkiness.
Part of the reason I play simulators is to be able to "drive" cars that I'd never be able to in real life. I also like to compare cars. I own a Cobalt SS Supercharged. And I like to have virtual drive-offs between it and cars like the Acura RSX and Honda Civic Si. Now, Forza has a fun option for that called hot-lapping, where I pick my car, pick my track, then go race alone against the clock. That's wonderful, fantastic, I love it.
But when I want to race another car on the exact same track, I have to exit the track, wait for the menus to load, back out of the track menu, select another car, re-select the track, wait for it to load, then begin playing.
I can't possibly be the only one who thinks that is incredibly stupid. Why can't we just leave the track loaded and allow me to select a different car? I realize I'll still have to wait a little bit to load the car physics and all that. But that would be WAY better than the rigamarole above.
But it gets worse. Sometimes I like to drive the same car, but at different spec levels (Forza has a cool system called the Performance Index that has different classes from F to S and beyond). One would think that I could simply load different spec levels for the same car while at the track. But no. Forza sees that as an error, and kindly asks you to set the car up BEFORE entering the track. That's just stupid.
While I'm complaining, I might as well register another gripe that's been bothering me since Gran Turismo 3. Why do I always have to race the A.I. opponents in the same cars in the same order? It's stupid. Under Forza 3's Freeplay option, one would think one could set up a race any way one wanted. But no. Let's say I pick a B-class car to race, and I chose Quick Race. First of all, it's only one lap, which is stupid. Why not let the user pick the number of laps? But secondly, while I admire the computer's ability to pick cars that are in the B-class for me to race against, why can't I pick cars from my garage and let the A.I. drive those?
Let's face it. Even on "expert," the A.I. simply cannot beat me if I have a B-500 and they only have a B-461. Why not let me give the A.I. a fighting chance and have them drive my highly modified cars? That would make for a real interesting race.
Recently Game Informer and other video game media have wondered how the industry can breathe fresh life into the simulator world. Games like Grid and Need for Speed: Shift attempt to answer those questions by shaking somethings up, but they took away the most important part of the simulator - the ability to buy and modify my own stable of cars. Idiots.
Now, to me it seems like a no-brainer. "User-generated content" is all the rage, after all. I've outlined above several very simple ways to breathe fresh life into the simulator crowd - things that would probably be regarded as "revolutionary" by the media. Shows what they know. This kind of stuff should have been making its way into the genre starting with Gran Turismo 3, or maybe the fourth one at the worst.
Now I know Forza's graphics creation thing is fantastic, and that's wonderful and all. But would it really be that hard to add the the suggestions above, and maybe a few others? Surely the programming is not the issue. If it is, that's just sad.
No video game has ever failed by giving gamers what they want in a well-executed, highly polished package. However, whole franchises have sunk (I'm thinking of From Software here) by refusing to change and attempting to dictate gameplay to the gamer. I'm not saying Forza and Gran Turismo are doomed to that fate. But they could be if the industry doesn't wake up and sprinkle a little creativity into these things.
If I wrote for Game Informer, I'd give this game a 7. If I worked for G4 TV, a 3. It deserves those scores for failing to innovate, and worse, trying to pass off "innovations" that happened a long time ago as true breakthroughs. Boo. That said, I'll still play the crap out of it, and love it, because there's nothing better out there. And that's just sad.
PS - they've taken steps forward and backward in the aural department. Cars sound better overall, yet the engine sounds don't change with modification - a staple in the genre. That's just stupid.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Three R's
My friend Pedro teaches a Freshman Seminar at the local college. Since he is given a lot of freedom as to what he teaches, he mostly uses it as an opportunity to shake the self-absorbed American teenager out of complacency and into a more thoughtful, well-rounded life. A sort of introduction to practical philosophy, if you will.
Naturally this is accomplished by reading a lot and writing papers, and that's also where the problem arises. These kids can barely read, and by that I don't mean they are illiterate. I mean they have little idea how to devour a text and then explain what it is they just read. I don't know if it's because they get distracted by text messages, updating their Facebook page, or the opposite sex strolling casually to and from the shower. I also don't know what the SAT is measuring these days, but it certainly isn't comprehension.
But it's not just reading. These kids can barely write. I've been watching Pedro's class for a few years now, and the spelling and grammar has generally improved. So whatever changes took place ten or so years ago - bravo! However, they still tend to misuse words, and they still tend to get confused by its and it's, they're, their and there, and other things I had ironed out by the sixth grade.
Not only that, but the five paragraph essay seems to be dead. These kids have no idea how to write an introduction, thesis, supporting paragraphs, and conclusion. Sure, they think they've got it down, but really all they have down is the art of the MFA citation. And that's nice and all, but twenty well written citations does not a paper make.
It's almost as if they don't know the paper is supposed to contain their opinion. Most of the time they can barely even articulate an opinion, unless they're a strong sports fan or a Single Issue Fanatic. Sometimes I go help Pedro in his attempt to help the students write better papers. Most of the time what I encounter is a strong stream-of-consciousness style of writing with a large helping of feelings-oriented argumentation.
Certainly there is a time and place for such things. But not in an opinion paper (usually the first paper), and certainly not in a paper in which one is supposed to defend one's worldview (usually the second or third). Can you imagine a politician trying to argue the merits of a controversial piece of legislation by meandering all over the place with his random thoughts and feelings?
I'm sure all teachers in all generations have lamented the poor education of the students they see every year. Every generation looks back on the previous one and sees nothing but faults and missed opportunities. But here's the rub: New Jersey spends an astronomical amount of money on its education system. As a result they're consistently ranked in the top five states. Yet this is the result? These kids not only can't articulate their own opinions, they have an almost unshakable faith in their own ability to think for themselves. Pedro is brilliant at shining a light on this dark lie, and at the end of the semester these kids - whose brains are still mostly mush - do manage to understand that they certainly have not been as thoughtful as they claim, and they have a sinking suspicion they ought to think a bit more on the things that matter most.
That is a noble pursuit, but I think it's sad that it is hampered, at least initially, by such poverty in two of the three pillars of modern education.
Naturally this is accomplished by reading a lot and writing papers, and that's also where the problem arises. These kids can barely read, and by that I don't mean they are illiterate. I mean they have little idea how to devour a text and then explain what it is they just read. I don't know if it's because they get distracted by text messages, updating their Facebook page, or the opposite sex strolling casually to and from the shower. I also don't know what the SAT is measuring these days, but it certainly isn't comprehension.
But it's not just reading. These kids can barely write. I've been watching Pedro's class for a few years now, and the spelling and grammar has generally improved. So whatever changes took place ten or so years ago - bravo! However, they still tend to misuse words, and they still tend to get confused by its and it's, they're, their and there, and other things I had ironed out by the sixth grade.
Not only that, but the five paragraph essay seems to be dead. These kids have no idea how to write an introduction, thesis, supporting paragraphs, and conclusion. Sure, they think they've got it down, but really all they have down is the art of the MFA citation. And that's nice and all, but twenty well written citations does not a paper make.
It's almost as if they don't know the paper is supposed to contain their opinion. Most of the time they can barely even articulate an opinion, unless they're a strong sports fan or a Single Issue Fanatic. Sometimes I go help Pedro in his attempt to help the students write better papers. Most of the time what I encounter is a strong stream-of-consciousness style of writing with a large helping of feelings-oriented argumentation.
Certainly there is a time and place for such things. But not in an opinion paper (usually the first paper), and certainly not in a paper in which one is supposed to defend one's worldview (usually the second or third). Can you imagine a politician trying to argue the merits of a controversial piece of legislation by meandering all over the place with his random thoughts and feelings?
I'm sure all teachers in all generations have lamented the poor education of the students they see every year. Every generation looks back on the previous one and sees nothing but faults and missed opportunities. But here's the rub: New Jersey spends an astronomical amount of money on its education system. As a result they're consistently ranked in the top five states. Yet this is the result? These kids not only can't articulate their own opinions, they have an almost unshakable faith in their own ability to think for themselves. Pedro is brilliant at shining a light on this dark lie, and at the end of the semester these kids - whose brains are still mostly mush - do manage to understand that they certainly have not been as thoughtful as they claim, and they have a sinking suspicion they ought to think a bit more on the things that matter most.
That is a noble pursuit, but I think it's sad that it is hampered, at least initially, by such poverty in two of the three pillars of modern education.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Do Babies Dream of Electric Bottles?
One of the things that surprised me about being a parent was when Zoe first started waking up suddenly, crying her lungs out. She does this on occassion, and as near as Victoria and I can tell, she seems to be having a nightmare. It's very hard to wake her up in this condition, but once she does, she usually calms down and can even be quite happy.
But this begets a whole series of questions. Can babies dream? If so, what about? What is a baby's worst nightmare? She doesn't seem to have anxiety separation yet. We can leave her with strangers, walk away, and she's happy as a clam.
Victoria suggests that perhaps she sees a bottle that she cannot reach, and is maybe a little hungry as well. But I wonder. Is the subconscious even formed yet? Is the sense of self even formed yet (i.e., is she even self-aware)? How would one even test such a thing? I mean, I can imagine a battery of MRI or CAT scan tests to determine which areas of the brain are lighting up, but that can only tell us if the baby is actually dreaming. Such tests can't reveal the content of the dream.
Too bad there's no way to do the cool sci-fi thing and hook up a camera directly to her brain so that we can see the images on a screen. Then again, perhaps an Avent bottle with angry eyes, giant fangs, and a bad case of rabies is something I'd rather not see.
But this begets a whole series of questions. Can babies dream? If so, what about? What is a baby's worst nightmare? She doesn't seem to have anxiety separation yet. We can leave her with strangers, walk away, and she's happy as a clam.
Victoria suggests that perhaps she sees a bottle that she cannot reach, and is maybe a little hungry as well. But I wonder. Is the subconscious even formed yet? Is the sense of self even formed yet (i.e., is she even self-aware)? How would one even test such a thing? I mean, I can imagine a battery of MRI or CAT scan tests to determine which areas of the brain are lighting up, but that can only tell us if the baby is actually dreaming. Such tests can't reveal the content of the dream.
Too bad there's no way to do the cool sci-fi thing and hook up a camera directly to her brain so that we can see the images on a screen. Then again, perhaps an Avent bottle with angry eyes, giant fangs, and a bad case of rabies is something I'd rather not see.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Nobel Pity Prize
If you're like me, and you woke up this morning not expecting to hear that the President had won the Nobel Peace Prize, then your next thought was probably, "What for?"
Sure, President Obama has a wonderful way with words, and speaks like one of the old-school politicians from days of yore. But I'm not sure how that translates to Peace Prize. The Nobel committee explained that they sometimes give these things out to enhance potential.
Or something like that. I wasn't really paying attention, since I was still a little shocked.
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at all, though. I don't know about the rest of you, but I first thought something was wrong with the Nobel folks when they gave the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat. Here's a guy who spent his entire life doing anything but promoting peace, and yet because he decided to wash his hands a bit and give some mighty purty speeches, they dump a peace prize into his lap. Nevermind that his minions continued to sow seeds of discontent and violence. Nevermind that a couple of years after his prize all his grand words turned into hog slop as the deals he negotiated fell apart at his own direction (to be fair, the Israelis must shoulder their share of blame).
I hope I'm wrong, but I think the real reason they gave him the prize is that they felt sorry for him. I mean, he wasted all that effort trying to get the Olympics for Chicago, and those meanies didn't even give us the time of day. Healthcare reform is proving to be a pain, as is closing Guantanamo, dealing with the Afghan war, and cleaning up the economy. And of course there's a lot of rumors flying around about people dumping the dollar. You know, on account of our astronomically huge debt. The guy just can't catch a break!
Boo-hoo, cry me a river. This is a sad, sad day for America. We've now become the pity vote. The kid you try not to pick last for kickball because your mom told you it would hurt his feelings (I was that kid, by the way). The guy that all the girls consider a friend but not a boyfriend (I was not that guy, by the way).
Last time I checked, this country was supposed to be about working for a living, earning achievement through hard work, dedication, and perseverance. I didn't realize we could get million dollar awards and international fame for mere potential. Clearly I've been riding the wrong gravy train.
Awesome. I can't wait to see what else Real Change (TM) brings to America.
Sure, President Obama has a wonderful way with words, and speaks like one of the old-school politicians from days of yore. But I'm not sure how that translates to Peace Prize. The Nobel committee explained that they sometimes give these things out to enhance potential.
Or something like that. I wasn't really paying attention, since I was still a little shocked.
I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised at all, though. I don't know about the rest of you, but I first thought something was wrong with the Nobel folks when they gave the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat. Here's a guy who spent his entire life doing anything but promoting peace, and yet because he decided to wash his hands a bit and give some mighty purty speeches, they dump a peace prize into his lap. Nevermind that his minions continued to sow seeds of discontent and violence. Nevermind that a couple of years after his prize all his grand words turned into hog slop as the deals he negotiated fell apart at his own direction (to be fair, the Israelis must shoulder their share of blame).
I hope I'm wrong, but I think the real reason they gave him the prize is that they felt sorry for him. I mean, he wasted all that effort trying to get the Olympics for Chicago, and those meanies didn't even give us the time of day. Healthcare reform is proving to be a pain, as is closing Guantanamo, dealing with the Afghan war, and cleaning up the economy. And of course there's a lot of rumors flying around about people dumping the dollar. You know, on account of our astronomically huge debt. The guy just can't catch a break!
Boo-hoo, cry me a river. This is a sad, sad day for America. We've now become the pity vote. The kid you try not to pick last for kickball because your mom told you it would hurt his feelings (I was that kid, by the way). The guy that all the girls consider a friend but not a boyfriend (I was not that guy, by the way).
Last time I checked, this country was supposed to be about working for a living, earning achievement through hard work, dedication, and perseverance. I didn't realize we could get million dollar awards and international fame for mere potential. Clearly I've been riding the wrong gravy train.
Awesome. I can't wait to see what else Real Change (TM) brings to America.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Hooray for Oppression!
I suppose someone, somewhere can make a reasonable excuse for why the Empire State Building was lit up for China. In a world where the United States is seen as evil because we pretended to drown three guys who just happened to want to kill babies, I suppose such things could even be considered common.
In the video game Command and Conquer: Red Alert, players can assume the role of Communist Russia. Actually Stalinist Russia, since the Man of Steel himself gives orders to the player. Seen as cheesy by today's standards, I thought the portrayal of Stalin was actually quite good at the time. I'll never forget this line:
"If one man dies, it is a tragedy. If a million die, it is a statistic."
Creepy as it is, perhaps these famous words can help us solve some of the problems we've been facing on the world stage. After all, our popularity of late, even with a big time rock star president, hasn't helped us win the Olympics, de-nuclearized Iran (or North Korea), and that mean old Hugo Chavez still doesn't like us. Apparently, the trick is not to pretend-kill a few folks, but to actually kill a whole lot of folks. Like, millions. Since China is now so beloved around the world, the obvious answer to our war woes is to start killing more people, like they did.
But therein lies the problem. For the last thirty years, we've been developing weapons that kill less, not more. "Smart" weapons technology is focused solely on doing as little collateral damage as possible. I think it is now clear that such a strategy was tragically myopic.
Now that the world knows we respect life, unlike the Chinese and other communists, they expect us not to kill at all. Our magical wonder weapons should be able to wage war without killing anyone. Maybe some light lesions and contusions are OK, but loss of life and limb is right out.
So how do we reverse the current negative opinion of the United States on the world stage? Fortunately we have all the tools we need right here at home, and we won't even have to spend too much money to enact the plan. In fact, we can kill multiple birds with one stone! I know in today's economy bang for the buck is a high priority. My plan will give us the biggest possible bang for our teeny tiny bucks.
"zOMG, Peter," you might say, "wat iz tihns magik wepun?" Why, it's our nuclear arsenal, of course! Think of the possibilities. Nuclear weapons can kill tens, or even hundreds of thousands with just one warhead. We still have several thousand. With a limited nuclear war, we could easily begin closing the "Death Gap" we have with China, and begin securing our position as the world's most popular country.
But wait, there's more. Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan have all been giving us headaches of late. By nuking these guys, we solve two problems at once! As Stalin also said, "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
But that's not all! Lots of other countries are upset with us because we don't do the environmentally correct thing. But neither has China, and they're way more popular than us. The nuclear option actually takes care of three problems at once! Not only will we kill millions of people, solve international political disputes, but we'll ruin the envirnoment at the same time! And all for one low price! It's a trifecta of savings.
Don't wait. Call your representative today. Those nukes aren't going to launch themselves. Sure, our popularity might take a hit in the short run. But think of the big picture. In fifty or sixty years, skyscrapers all over the world will fly the red, white, and blue as they celebrate our authoritative return as the world's most popular country.
In the video game Command and Conquer: Red Alert, players can assume the role of Communist Russia. Actually Stalinist Russia, since the Man of Steel himself gives orders to the player. Seen as cheesy by today's standards, I thought the portrayal of Stalin was actually quite good at the time. I'll never forget this line:
"If one man dies, it is a tragedy. If a million die, it is a statistic."
Creepy as it is, perhaps these famous words can help us solve some of the problems we've been facing on the world stage. After all, our popularity of late, even with a big time rock star president, hasn't helped us win the Olympics, de-nuclearized Iran (or North Korea), and that mean old Hugo Chavez still doesn't like us. Apparently, the trick is not to pretend-kill a few folks, but to actually kill a whole lot of folks. Like, millions. Since China is now so beloved around the world, the obvious answer to our war woes is to start killing more people, like they did.
But therein lies the problem. For the last thirty years, we've been developing weapons that kill less, not more. "Smart" weapons technology is focused solely on doing as little collateral damage as possible. I think it is now clear that such a strategy was tragically myopic.
Now that the world knows we respect life, unlike the Chinese and other communists, they expect us not to kill at all. Our magical wonder weapons should be able to wage war without killing anyone. Maybe some light lesions and contusions are OK, but loss of life and limb is right out.
So how do we reverse the current negative opinion of the United States on the world stage? Fortunately we have all the tools we need right here at home, and we won't even have to spend too much money to enact the plan. In fact, we can kill multiple birds with one stone! I know in today's economy bang for the buck is a high priority. My plan will give us the biggest possible bang for our teeny tiny bucks.
"zOMG, Peter," you might say, "wat iz tihns magik wepun?" Why, it's our nuclear arsenal, of course! Think of the possibilities. Nuclear weapons can kill tens, or even hundreds of thousands with just one warhead. We still have several thousand. With a limited nuclear war, we could easily begin closing the "Death Gap" we have with China, and begin securing our position as the world's most popular country.
But wait, there's more. Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, and Afghanistan have all been giving us headaches of late. By nuking these guys, we solve two problems at once! As Stalin also said, "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem."
But that's not all! Lots of other countries are upset with us because we don't do the environmentally correct thing. But neither has China, and they're way more popular than us. The nuclear option actually takes care of three problems at once! Not only will we kill millions of people, solve international political disputes, but we'll ruin the envirnoment at the same time! And all for one low price! It's a trifecta of savings.
Don't wait. Call your representative today. Those nukes aren't going to launch themselves. Sure, our popularity might take a hit in the short run. But think of the big picture. In fifty or sixty years, skyscrapers all over the world will fly the red, white, and blue as they celebrate our authoritative return as the world's most popular country.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Thanks For All the Fish
Today the Security Council and Germany made a few agreements with Iran. The most notable are that they'll all meet up again at the end of the month. The second was that Iran will allow the IAEA in to inspect the new site at Qom, which they said they'll do in two weeks or less. The third is that Iran will send its ~20% enriched uranium to Russia for verification.
I believe Iran has played us all, and though the events today would seem to be evidence against that at first blush, from the Iranian perspective nothing has substantially changed. Their goal now is to delay. Every extra day they delay is another day they can enrich ever more uranium.
Consider the deal to send Russia their already enriched uranium, which they say is for medical purposes (first, when it was at a lower enrichment level, it was for peaceful power generation). There is no timetable for that move, unless I simply misheard the President, which is entirely possible. Even if there is, the Iranian government has proven to be quite masterful at using delay and distraction techniques to achieve their goals.
If you'll remember the first few rounds of inspections, they continually led the IAEA inspectors on wild goose chases, locking them out of facilities, delaying entrance to facilities, even throwing them out of the country on occasion. There is no reason why they won't start that nonsense again, and no reason why they won't use the same techniques to keep their uranium away from Russia.
The President has promised to increase pressure if Iran does not comply. But what does that mean? Suppose two weeks go by and Iran delays letting the IAEA into the Qom facility, as they have done in the past. The conversation will go like this:
P5+1: "You were supposed to let those inspectors in. Two weeks are up, what's the deal?"
Iran: "Two weeks? That wasn't nearly enough time to prepare for such an auspicious visit, we need more time. Also, some holidays are coming. Religious ones."
P5+1: "Religious? Oh, pardon us. We didn't realize. We'll wait 'till they're over, but then we must begin without delay."
China: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Iran: "You dare to speak against the Prophet?"
U.S.: "You're not helping."
Iran: "We can't go on like this, being insulted day in and day out by these intolerant imperialists. America is the great Satan."
Russia: "True dat, yo."
U.S.: "Wait! We didn't even do anything!"
France: "Why can't you be more accomodating, like us? It's your arrogance that prevents peace."
U.K.: "I say, you can't speak that way about my sister, you filthy frogs!"
Germany: "Ich bin ein jelly doughnut."
Switzerland: "Who wants one of our world-famous Army knives? We also have some excellent watches and chocolate for sale."
I'm telling you, it's just going to get worse from here.
I believe Iran has played us all, and though the events today would seem to be evidence against that at first blush, from the Iranian perspective nothing has substantially changed. Their goal now is to delay. Every extra day they delay is another day they can enrich ever more uranium.
Consider the deal to send Russia their already enriched uranium, which they say is for medical purposes (first, when it was at a lower enrichment level, it was for peaceful power generation). There is no timetable for that move, unless I simply misheard the President, which is entirely possible. Even if there is, the Iranian government has proven to be quite masterful at using delay and distraction techniques to achieve their goals.
If you'll remember the first few rounds of inspections, they continually led the IAEA inspectors on wild goose chases, locking them out of facilities, delaying entrance to facilities, even throwing them out of the country on occasion. There is no reason why they won't start that nonsense again, and no reason why they won't use the same techniques to keep their uranium away from Russia.
The President has promised to increase pressure if Iran does not comply. But what does that mean? Suppose two weeks go by and Iran delays letting the IAEA into the Qom facility, as they have done in the past. The conversation will go like this:
P5+1: "You were supposed to let those inspectors in. Two weeks are up, what's the deal?"
Iran: "Two weeks? That wasn't nearly enough time to prepare for such an auspicious visit, we need more time. Also, some holidays are coming. Religious ones."
P5+1: "Religious? Oh, pardon us. We didn't realize. We'll wait 'till they're over, but then we must begin without delay."
China: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
Iran: "You dare to speak against the Prophet?"
U.S.: "You're not helping."
Iran: "We can't go on like this, being insulted day in and day out by these intolerant imperialists. America is the great Satan."
Russia: "True dat, yo."
U.S.: "Wait! We didn't even do anything!"
France: "Why can't you be more accomodating, like us? It's your arrogance that prevents peace."
U.K.: "I say, you can't speak that way about my sister, you filthy frogs!"
Germany: "Ich bin ein jelly doughnut."
Switzerland: "Who wants one of our world-famous Army knives? We also have some excellent watches and chocolate for sale."
I'm telling you, it's just going to get worse from here.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Iran to U.S.: Checkmate.
On the world stage, it seems to me that politics often takes the form of a giant chess game. Nations vie with one another for control over various resources, and the most successful are the ones who have carefully laid plans that look many moves in advance.
Certainly we have been doing this for many years, as have the Russians, the Chinese, and every other great power.
But Iran has just defeated us all with some rather ingenious maneuvering.
If you watch the news like I do, you might be under the impression that the world is about to apply serious pressure to Iran to get them to stop enriching uranium. The thought is that Iran is planning to use this enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons, and that if the rest of the world can simply apply enough economic pressure, then Iran's economy will collapse, Ahmadinejad will be ousted, and perhaps even the mullahs and ayatollah will have their power stripped.
This is ridiculously naive, almost to the point of silliness, and here's why. In the West, we often assume that other countries think and function the way we do. That is, we believe everyone wants individual freedoms for everyone else, and will fight to make the world more equitable. We also tend to believe that if a country has 'elections,' then that means their people also have similar rights to us, and that their government could never brutally oppress them.
If you think like that, you should've paid more attention to the crackdown that ensued when the Iranian people accused Ahmadinejad of stealing the election. Did any part of the military or police force side with the protestors? No. Did any of the ruling mullahs side with them? No. Did the ayatollah himself give any legitimacy to the protests? No.
See, in the West we realize that the vast majority of the Iranian people are secular, don't like Ahmadinejad, and don't like the direction he and the ruling council are taking their country. What we don't yet realize (though I hope the Obama administration does) is that it doesn't matter, since those same secular people have neither the political nor the military muscle to do anything about their situation.
So what does that mean? It means they'll suffer under economic sanctions and have no recourse but to continue to suffer, until such time as the council changes their situation or the Revolutionary Guard revolts and sides with the people. I don't think either one of those is going to happen.
The Administration and the rest of the West seem confident, now that we have revealed to the world yet another enrichment facility at Qom, that the whole world will come together and put pressure on Iran to stop enriching uranium. Most of this pressure would come from a denial of banking transactions (Iran would not be able to get paid for the oil it sells), and an embargo of gasoline (Iran has to import something like 80%-90% of its gasoline).
For this to work two things have to happen. First, the Security Council must pass binding resolutions for this pressure. Second, they have to enforce it. I have my doubts that such a thing will ever happen. Obama dropped a bombshell on the world by forcing Iran to admit that they have yet another secret enrichment facility under construction. Yet the reaction from China and Russia was a collective sigh and shrug. They don't care, and we have nothing to make them care.
They are not going to help, mainly because they have no incentive to help. However, IF the U.N. does pass resolutions, and IF they are effective, then maybe, just maybe Iran can be stopped. But those resolutions will have to hold until the current government either changes or is overthrown, and rogue nations through the years have shown an incredible resiliency to U.N. resolutions - even ones that are enforced.
Those are big IFs, though. The more realistic scenario is that Russia and/or China drag their feet, and the Security Council passes binding resolutions, but only after it's too late. It will be revealed that Iran has enough material for a nuclear weapon, and is quickly making ever more weapons-grade uranium. A bomb has not yet been built, but could be assembled in a matter of weeks.
There then remain two options. Israel attacks, sparking a wider ranging conflict in the Middle East, and simultaneously sending global oil prices skyrocketing, which will have a negative impact on the Western economies. The better option is that we keep Israel reigned in, a tenuous peace exists around the globe, but Iran has functional nuclear warheads.
Obviously neither of those is the best option, but we have been beaten at the game. The Iranians will have nuclear weapons within a year - or else the Arab world will once again be at war with Israel.
God in heaven, I hope I'm wrong.
Certainly we have been doing this for many years, as have the Russians, the Chinese, and every other great power.
But Iran has just defeated us all with some rather ingenious maneuvering.
If you watch the news like I do, you might be under the impression that the world is about to apply serious pressure to Iran to get them to stop enriching uranium. The thought is that Iran is planning to use this enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons, and that if the rest of the world can simply apply enough economic pressure, then Iran's economy will collapse, Ahmadinejad will be ousted, and perhaps even the mullahs and ayatollah will have their power stripped.
This is ridiculously naive, almost to the point of silliness, and here's why. In the West, we often assume that other countries think and function the way we do. That is, we believe everyone wants individual freedoms for everyone else, and will fight to make the world more equitable. We also tend to believe that if a country has 'elections,' then that means their people also have similar rights to us, and that their government could never brutally oppress them.
If you think like that, you should've paid more attention to the crackdown that ensued when the Iranian people accused Ahmadinejad of stealing the election. Did any part of the military or police force side with the protestors? No. Did any of the ruling mullahs side with them? No. Did the ayatollah himself give any legitimacy to the protests? No.
See, in the West we realize that the vast majority of the Iranian people are secular, don't like Ahmadinejad, and don't like the direction he and the ruling council are taking their country. What we don't yet realize (though I hope the Obama administration does) is that it doesn't matter, since those same secular people have neither the political nor the military muscle to do anything about their situation.
So what does that mean? It means they'll suffer under economic sanctions and have no recourse but to continue to suffer, until such time as the council changes their situation or the Revolutionary Guard revolts and sides with the people. I don't think either one of those is going to happen.
The Administration and the rest of the West seem confident, now that we have revealed to the world yet another enrichment facility at Qom, that the whole world will come together and put pressure on Iran to stop enriching uranium. Most of this pressure would come from a denial of banking transactions (Iran would not be able to get paid for the oil it sells), and an embargo of gasoline (Iran has to import something like 80%-90% of its gasoline).
For this to work two things have to happen. First, the Security Council must pass binding resolutions for this pressure. Second, they have to enforce it. I have my doubts that such a thing will ever happen. Obama dropped a bombshell on the world by forcing Iran to admit that they have yet another secret enrichment facility under construction. Yet the reaction from China and Russia was a collective sigh and shrug. They don't care, and we have nothing to make them care.
They are not going to help, mainly because they have no incentive to help. However, IF the U.N. does pass resolutions, and IF they are effective, then maybe, just maybe Iran can be stopped. But those resolutions will have to hold until the current government either changes or is overthrown, and rogue nations through the years have shown an incredible resiliency to U.N. resolutions - even ones that are enforced.
Those are big IFs, though. The more realistic scenario is that Russia and/or China drag their feet, and the Security Council passes binding resolutions, but only after it's too late. It will be revealed that Iran has enough material for a nuclear weapon, and is quickly making ever more weapons-grade uranium. A bomb has not yet been built, but could be assembled in a matter of weeks.
There then remain two options. Israel attacks, sparking a wider ranging conflict in the Middle East, and simultaneously sending global oil prices skyrocketing, which will have a negative impact on the Western economies. The better option is that we keep Israel reigned in, a tenuous peace exists around the globe, but Iran has functional nuclear warheads.
Obviously neither of those is the best option, but we have been beaten at the game. The Iranians will have nuclear weapons within a year - or else the Arab world will once again be at war with Israel.
God in heaven, I hope I'm wrong.
Crazy Like a Fox
A lot of people probably think Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is certifiable.
That is, he's nuts.
I know I used to think that. I also used to think Hugo Chavez was a fruit. But then something happened. I watched, with equal parts horror and fascination, as Muammar Qaddafi gave what can only be called the weirdest speech of all time. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly, Qaddafi rambled on for over an hour about jet lag, the Jews killing Kennedy, the "Terror" Council, his own misgivings about being a member of the U.N., problems with the charter, the unfairness of the capital system, and oh yes, my personal favorite - that swine flu is a Cold War biological weapon that got out of control. He then asked the only logical follow-up question: "What's next? Fish flu?"
At one point the translator gave out, reportedly exclaiming in Arabic, "I can't take it any more!"
The speech was disturbing, not because the U.N. allowed it to happen, but because it reveals what true crazy looks like. After watching the good Colonel speak, I knew then that neither Ahmadinejad nor Chavez were actually crazy. And that's even more frightening. Because if they're not crazy, then that means all the 'crazy' things they've said over the years have some kind of purpose (rational or not) that fit into some overall strategic vision.
I don't pretend to know what that vision is, but I have a feeling it's not in the best interests of the rest of the world. In the U.S., we tend to laugh at these guys as clowns on the world stage. I think this is a mistake. When A-Jad got up to speak, the Canadians (the CANADIANS!) beat us and other Western delegations to the door in protest. In all, 11 delegations walked out.
But the rest stayed. That should be troubling, for Chavez and Ahmadinejad's message is not one of blood and fire and terror, or crazy ramblings about jetlag and conspiracy theories. Rather, they preach a message that resonates with other smaller countries - that the former superpowers, China, Japan, and the West at large have unfairly dominated the world, using the U.N. as a tool for oppression disguised as legitimate business.
Because that message rings true, these leaders (and others) can get the ears of these smaller nations, and plant seeds. Like I said earlier, I have no idea what the endgame is. Is it an overhaul of the U.N.? Is it a mass exodus? Is it a request for admission onto the Security Council (as Qaddafi proposed)? Or is it simply to make as much trouble as possible for the five permanent members so that they can pursue their own agendas in relative peace?
Who knows, but these are tyrants, and whenever tyranny is involved, the outcome can never be described as 'good.'
That is, he's nuts.
I know I used to think that. I also used to think Hugo Chavez was a fruit. But then something happened. I watched, with equal parts horror and fascination, as Muammar Qaddafi gave what can only be called the weirdest speech of all time. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly, Qaddafi rambled on for over an hour about jet lag, the Jews killing Kennedy, the "Terror" Council, his own misgivings about being a member of the U.N., problems with the charter, the unfairness of the capital system, and oh yes, my personal favorite - that swine flu is a Cold War biological weapon that got out of control. He then asked the only logical follow-up question: "What's next? Fish flu?"
At one point the translator gave out, reportedly exclaiming in Arabic, "I can't take it any more!"
The speech was disturbing, not because the U.N. allowed it to happen, but because it reveals what true crazy looks like. After watching the good Colonel speak, I knew then that neither Ahmadinejad nor Chavez were actually crazy. And that's even more frightening. Because if they're not crazy, then that means all the 'crazy' things they've said over the years have some kind of purpose (rational or not) that fit into some overall strategic vision.
I don't pretend to know what that vision is, but I have a feeling it's not in the best interests of the rest of the world. In the U.S., we tend to laugh at these guys as clowns on the world stage. I think this is a mistake. When A-Jad got up to speak, the Canadians (the CANADIANS!) beat us and other Western delegations to the door in protest. In all, 11 delegations walked out.
But the rest stayed. That should be troubling, for Chavez and Ahmadinejad's message is not one of blood and fire and terror, or crazy ramblings about jetlag and conspiracy theories. Rather, they preach a message that resonates with other smaller countries - that the former superpowers, China, Japan, and the West at large have unfairly dominated the world, using the U.N. as a tool for oppression disguised as legitimate business.
Because that message rings true, these leaders (and others) can get the ears of these smaller nations, and plant seeds. Like I said earlier, I have no idea what the endgame is. Is it an overhaul of the U.N.? Is it a mass exodus? Is it a request for admission onto the Security Council (as Qaddafi proposed)? Or is it simply to make as much trouble as possible for the five permanent members so that they can pursue their own agendas in relative peace?
Who knows, but these are tyrants, and whenever tyranny is involved, the outcome can never be described as 'good.'
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Babies Can Be Fun (You Know, in Between the Poopie Diapers)
Now I know what you're thinking. "Yes, but Peter, the poop! The poop gets all over everything, and it stinks, and there's diapers and food and sometimes screaming."
And all of that is true. I have always wondered what makes people have babies. And after spending the first few weeks with Zoe, I wondered what made them have more. Because let's face it: she could be awful. Loud, inconsolable, cranky, and with a mean shotgun diarrhea that had to be seen to be believed.
Also, I've done a lot of work with teenagers. I knew that small children could be fun, since they like doing anything you do, but teenagers have got to be the most annoying single body of people on the planet. Sure, they can be fun, too, but only if you can get on their good side. Otherwise they're just self-absorbed, know-it-all zombie clones with bad hair and an inability to think that really ought to leave modern science stunned. It's not like that should be shocking. We've all been there, too.
So caught between the screaming infant and a fate I knew lurked literally just over the horizon, I wondered when the fun would start.
But then she started smiling at me, and all the pain and knots that had been building in my muscles from the stress just melted immediately. Then she started laughing, and it is the most infectious laugh I have ever encountered. When she laughs it makes me laugh, and we just sit and laugh together and have a good ol' time. For instance, right now she's lying in her crib gurgling, cooing, and squealing to herself, and it's a riot.
I know eventually she'll hate me and think I'm the dumbest person on the planet, but for now we get to have at least a little bit of fun.
And all of that is true. I have always wondered what makes people have babies. And after spending the first few weeks with Zoe, I wondered what made them have more. Because let's face it: she could be awful. Loud, inconsolable, cranky, and with a mean shotgun diarrhea that had to be seen to be believed.
Also, I've done a lot of work with teenagers. I knew that small children could be fun, since they like doing anything you do, but teenagers have got to be the most annoying single body of people on the planet. Sure, they can be fun, too, but only if you can get on their good side. Otherwise they're just self-absorbed, know-it-all zombie clones with bad hair and an inability to think that really ought to leave modern science stunned. It's not like that should be shocking. We've all been there, too.
So caught between the screaming infant and a fate I knew lurked literally just over the horizon, I wondered when the fun would start.
But then she started smiling at me, and all the pain and knots that had been building in my muscles from the stress just melted immediately. Then she started laughing, and it is the most infectious laugh I have ever encountered. When she laughs it makes me laugh, and we just sit and laugh together and have a good ol' time. For instance, right now she's lying in her crib gurgling, cooing, and squealing to herself, and it's a riot.
I know eventually she'll hate me and think I'm the dumbest person on the planet, but for now we get to have at least a little bit of fun.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Smurfberries!
For those of you who are Children of the 80s, you no doubt remember the Smurfs, unless your parents had some kind of uncanny sight beyond sight and recognized the now obvious Soviet propaganda for what it is.
Regardless, one of the things I loved the most about the Smurfs was that the word smurf was not just a noun, but a multi-purpose verb. "You're the smurfiest smurf that ever smurfed a smurf" would no doubt be correct in a written paper.
I submit that we need more words like this in English. If you're not familiar with our mother tongue's penchant for vocabulary, simply pick up an English dictionary, and then compare it to say, a Spanish or Russian dictionary. The paucity of words in those languages is downright overwhelming, if such a thing is even possible.
So, in order to better fit in with the rest of the world (and after all, that's part of what real change is all about), I say we start using already common and overused nouns as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions - you name it.
For example:
"Dude, you're like, the dudeliest dude that ever duded with dudes - and dudettes. You're totally dudical."
You know you want to. It'll be rad.
Regardless, one of the things I loved the most about the Smurfs was that the word smurf was not just a noun, but a multi-purpose verb. "You're the smurfiest smurf that ever smurfed a smurf" would no doubt be correct in a written paper.
I submit that we need more words like this in English. If you're not familiar with our mother tongue's penchant for vocabulary, simply pick up an English dictionary, and then compare it to say, a Spanish or Russian dictionary. The paucity of words in those languages is downright overwhelming, if such a thing is even possible.
So, in order to better fit in with the rest of the world (and after all, that's part of what real change is all about), I say we start using already common and overused nouns as verbs, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions - you name it.
For example:
"Dude, you're like, the dudeliest dude that ever duded with dudes - and dudettes. You're totally dudical."
You know you want to. It'll be rad.
Friday, September 11, 2009
A Time to Remember
First, a bit of football.
The Yellow Jackets managed to scrape by with a win over Clemson last night. After dominating the Tigers for a quarter and a half, the Wramblin' Wreck seemed to suffer from misfires and detonation. Clemson roared back and seemed poised to take it all when they were shut down by an admittedly bad call (but these things happen in college ball). Tech then kicked a field goal to win, and the D held on until the end.
In the pros, my man Troy Polamalu got injured after an amazing one-handed interception. The Steelers went on to win in overtime (the sudden death being much preferable to the whiny little girly rules of college ball).
Anyway, today is the second of our days which live in infamy. But it may come as a surprise that September 11th is important to me for reasons other than the obvious ones. Sure, I am still rattled by the thought that a bunch of radical murderers managed to pull off a plot that should only be found in movies, comic books, video games, and thriller novels. I am still awed by the heroism of ordinary Americans on Flight 93 and all those who responded to the emergencies in New York and the Pentagon. And I am still concerned for the safety of those who fight for me abroad.
But September 11th means so much more. Since entering college, I have developed a passion for knowing the truth. Deep down, we all know that there are things that are true, and things that are false. Those who claim that truth is relative are simply in denial of reality. Of course, in any search for the truth, one is bound to come upon falsehoods.
And this is where the events of September 11th intersect with my quest. There are many out there who believe the most outlandish claims about the events of that day. Generally known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" or "9/11 Truthers," these people believe almost anything except the most obvious - that 19 men working for Al Qaeda managed to change history by hijacking four airliners filled with innocent victims.
Like all conspiracy mongers, they bend the truth, misrepresent facts, tell half-truths, and generally do all they can to avoid dealing with the reality of that tragic day. They (whether purposefully or in ignorance, I don't know) misuse philosophical and scientific methods of inquiry, misquote scientific and engineering information, and engage in blatant abuses of logic and reason.
It is interesting on another level, since their behavior mimics those who are caught up in a cult-like enviroment. They believe they have the real truth, a truth that has been hidden and can only be revealed by secret knowledge. Having that knowledge helps them make sense out of a senseless world. But it isn't the truth. They're caught in a delusion that only leads them further from reality, and ultimately will damage the way they interact not only with history, but their fellow humans.
These people are dangerous, but not in the sense of national security. They're no threat to an orderly society - not in the traditional sense of maniacs with guns and knives. No, this is a more existential threat that exists for the entire Western world. There is a great battle underway, and the stakes couldn't be higher. On the one side is the insistence that all truth, and even reality itself, is merely relative - a byproduct of our own individual neurochemistry, and no two realities are congruent. On the other is the somewhat "old-fashioned" view that there is an objective reality, and that we use our senses and our minds to uncover what that reality is.
If the relativistic view wins out, then the end of Western civilization is assured (though by all means it may end through other mechanisms, as well). When we let go of our ability to connect in an organized, methodical manner to reality, then chaos follows shortly behind. A society divided in counteless ways over what is real will in short order rip itself apart.
Conspiracy theorists exist in the heart of this battle, not at the periphery. Allowing them to spew their nonsense unchallenged means that we give ground to the relativistic view of the universe, and edge one step closer to instability and chaos. Fortunately, organizations like Popular Science and the Skeptical Inquirer put a lot of time and effort into debunking 9/11 myths, as did many other individuals acting on their own. For now, the truth is alive and well in the West. But for how long? Crazy people will always be with us. Maintaining bastions of thought requires eternal vigilance.
Each 9/11 (and December 7th, for that matter), I think hard about ways I can help contribute to that vigilance, and combat the forces of deception and destruction in my own little sphere of influence.
The Yellow Jackets managed to scrape by with a win over Clemson last night. After dominating the Tigers for a quarter and a half, the Wramblin' Wreck seemed to suffer from misfires and detonation. Clemson roared back and seemed poised to take it all when they were shut down by an admittedly bad call (but these things happen in college ball). Tech then kicked a field goal to win, and the D held on until the end.
In the pros, my man Troy Polamalu got injured after an amazing one-handed interception. The Steelers went on to win in overtime (the sudden death being much preferable to the whiny little girly rules of college ball).
Anyway, today is the second of our days which live in infamy. But it may come as a surprise that September 11th is important to me for reasons other than the obvious ones. Sure, I am still rattled by the thought that a bunch of radical murderers managed to pull off a plot that should only be found in movies, comic books, video games, and thriller novels. I am still awed by the heroism of ordinary Americans on Flight 93 and all those who responded to the emergencies in New York and the Pentagon. And I am still concerned for the safety of those who fight for me abroad.
But September 11th means so much more. Since entering college, I have developed a passion for knowing the truth. Deep down, we all know that there are things that are true, and things that are false. Those who claim that truth is relative are simply in denial of reality. Of course, in any search for the truth, one is bound to come upon falsehoods.
And this is where the events of September 11th intersect with my quest. There are many out there who believe the most outlandish claims about the events of that day. Generally known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" or "9/11 Truthers," these people believe almost anything except the most obvious - that 19 men working for Al Qaeda managed to change history by hijacking four airliners filled with innocent victims.
Like all conspiracy mongers, they bend the truth, misrepresent facts, tell half-truths, and generally do all they can to avoid dealing with the reality of that tragic day. They (whether purposefully or in ignorance, I don't know) misuse philosophical and scientific methods of inquiry, misquote scientific and engineering information, and engage in blatant abuses of logic and reason.
It is interesting on another level, since their behavior mimics those who are caught up in a cult-like enviroment. They believe they have the real truth, a truth that has been hidden and can only be revealed by secret knowledge. Having that knowledge helps them make sense out of a senseless world. But it isn't the truth. They're caught in a delusion that only leads them further from reality, and ultimately will damage the way they interact not only with history, but their fellow humans.
These people are dangerous, but not in the sense of national security. They're no threat to an orderly society - not in the traditional sense of maniacs with guns and knives. No, this is a more existential threat that exists for the entire Western world. There is a great battle underway, and the stakes couldn't be higher. On the one side is the insistence that all truth, and even reality itself, is merely relative - a byproduct of our own individual neurochemistry, and no two realities are congruent. On the other is the somewhat "old-fashioned" view that there is an objective reality, and that we use our senses and our minds to uncover what that reality is.
If the relativistic view wins out, then the end of Western civilization is assured (though by all means it may end through other mechanisms, as well). When we let go of our ability to connect in an organized, methodical manner to reality, then chaos follows shortly behind. A society divided in counteless ways over what is real will in short order rip itself apart.
Conspiracy theorists exist in the heart of this battle, not at the periphery. Allowing them to spew their nonsense unchallenged means that we give ground to the relativistic view of the universe, and edge one step closer to instability and chaos. Fortunately, organizations like Popular Science and the Skeptical Inquirer put a lot of time and effort into debunking 9/11 myths, as did many other individuals acting on their own. For now, the truth is alive and well in the West. But for how long? Crazy people will always be with us. Maintaining bastions of thought requires eternal vigilance.
Each 9/11 (and December 7th, for that matter), I think hard about ways I can help contribute to that vigilance, and combat the forces of deception and destruction in my own little sphere of influence.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
No Healthpack Reform
So the President spoke last night, but there was no mention of the brilliance that would be the healthpack.
Oh well, I tried.
Maybe next time.
In other news, my daughter Zoe is learning to push up on her legs and arms. She gets her legs under her and the straightens them, which pushes her face along the floor. I don't know when babies start crawling, and even less about when they start doing the worm. And while we're on the subject, is the Worm a precursor to crawling? Or does she just enjoy rug burns? The one thing I do know is this: it's funny to watch.
Tomorrow is September 11th. Don't forget to remember the fallen.
Oh well, I tried.
Maybe next time.
In other news, my daughter Zoe is learning to push up on her legs and arms. She gets her legs under her and the straightens them, which pushes her face along the floor. I don't know when babies start crawling, and even less about when they start doing the worm. And while we're on the subject, is the Worm a precursor to crawling? Or does she just enjoy rug burns? The one thing I do know is this: it's funny to watch.
Tomorrow is September 11th. Don't forget to remember the fallen.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Remakes Number 1
Video game remakes seem to come and go in popularity, kind of like movie remakes.
But there are a handful of classic NES titles that deserve a modern remake, or at least a modern update a la Bionic Commando: Rearmed.
The first one I'd like to see is a remake for Guardian Legend, first published by Broderbund way back in 1988. It's an interesting title, because as far as I know, it was the first (and maybe only) game to combine shmup (shoot 'em up) action with an action adventure format like The Legend of Zelda.
In the game, the player takes the form of Earth's guardian, a mysterious woman with the ability to transform into a space fighter. The game is divided up into several dungeons, with the initial level serving as a kind of hub. To access the other levels, the player must acquire special weapons and keys. These are found by defeating mini-bosses and completing the games flying levels, which contain the main bosses. There were a host of special weapons in addition to the main weapon. The special weapons were powered by a kind of currency that could be found lying about or by defeating enemies. The special weapons could be upgraded twice, which made some of them extremely powerful. The main weapon could also be upgraded, as could the player's attack, defense, and hitpoint stats.
It was a fun combination, I thought, though by today's standards the flying sections might be seen as a little dull (at the time Compile was already legendary in the shmup community). And even though there were plenty of weapons, they didn't all have uses, like a Zelda or Metroid game. Still, in a remake those issues can be addressed. What was great about the game was the sense of forboding and adventure. Something had gone horribly wrong with the planet (the big blue thing on the title screen) and the evil there was headed straight for earth. As a kid I remember wondering what had happened to the creatures that created the planet. Why were they shaped like round blue blobs? Why was the Guardian able to use their weapons? And why was she sent, and not an entire armada?
The game touches on all kinds of interesting themes: megadisasters, lost planets, alien technology, and cybernetic organisms to name a few. In addition, I always got the feeling that the Guardian didn't really have a choice in her Guardianship. In the game's ending, she is seen free from her transforming suit of armor, and seems rather relieved. Perhaps I read too much into it as a kid. After all, I'd be relieved if I just saved my home from impending global catastrophe.
At any rate, there are so many nascent ideas in the game that a remake could really be transformed into a stellar experience. There could be interesting research topics like in Metroid Prime that help fill in the back story. Instead of the weapons being used simply for combat, they could have a more useful function like helping to reach other areas, or defeat specific enemies. I have no idea who owns the rights to the game. Broderbund is still around, but I wonder if they retained the rights or sold them to someone else. As usual, the Wikipedia article is only slightly helpful.
Still, I'd love to see a remake, and I'm sure there are plenty of others my age who have fond memories of their quest through Naju. And if it was done well enough, and entirely new generation would be exposed to this rather unique gaming experience. However, if it managed to be a giant crapfest like the 1942 remake, then it would go back into gaming obscurity, probably forever.
And that would be a shame.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Healthpack Reform
So healthcare is all the rage these days - at least as far as political conversations go.
President Obama has made healthcare reform a Big Deal - possibly the deal on which he hopes to cement his legacy. But there's a problem. In spite of his eloquence, he has been unable to articulate any kind of reform ideas. Will their be a public option or not? Will it be government run or co-op? What does this trigger business mean?
Most of this stuff is not his fault, as all 535 members of Congress have been running around, each seemingly supporting a different kind of reform.
In this post, I'll do two things that our beloved federal government have been unable to accomplish:
1). Enumerate the problems.
2). Provide a solution.
First, the problems. It's very simple, really. If you watch the news or look at any of the polls, the American people seem to want three things (in no particular order):
A. Tort reform. It's not rocket science. "Healthcare" lawyers (like John Edwards before he was a senator) see the insurance companies as giant pots of gold - money for the taking. All they need is fifteen minutes and a client willing to sue his or her doctor for forgetting to order that MRI. Most of us understand that such a mentality can't continue, and that if we just clamped down a little on these freeloaders (without squashing the rights of patients - there's always that fine balance), then we'd save literally tons of money.
For example, I have a friend who is an anesthesiologist. When he finally becomes a full-fledged one, he'll command what seems like an outrageous salary - until you learn that fully half of it must go to malpractice insurance. And that's before taxes. Clearly, something is broken there.
B. Pre-existing conditions. It's just not right that someone should be denied the ability to go see the doctor if they get the flu simply because they're diabetic, or have leukemia, or any of a thousand other things. I don't really see how this will help drive down costs, but it should be done because it's the right thing to do.
C. Interstate healthcare. This is absolutely ridiculous as well. Why can't we buy insurance from the company with the best price? I live in New Jersey, which until recently had absolutely obscene car insurance prices because of the socialized way in which they tried to provide coverage to "everyone." What ended up happening is that folks tried to drop off the radar and drive without it - thus continually driving up everyone else's premiums.
Not to mention companies pulled out of the state altogether, which reduced competition, which drove up prices. And finally shady fly-by-night companies sprang up everywhere offering cheap insurance for those who couldn't afford it. You can guess what happened to those folks when they got into an accident or needed help otherwise.
It's similar with health insurance companies, only for some reason we've accepted it as normal in all 50 states. Company A might be able to give me better coverage at a lower price, but because they're in Nevada and I'm not, I can't buy from them. That is stupid. There are no good reasons for keeping something like that going.
So those are the things that need fixing. Now for the fixer!
Healthpacks.
That's right. Those universal items we find in almost every video game. You can be dying of multiple gunshot wounds to the torso, yet if you find a little box with a red plus on it, you are immediately back in the game. Similarly, you can be fighting intergalactic baddies across the cosmos, lose an arm and a leg, and yet when that familiar white box comes into view, you know the day will only get brighter. Been poisoned? Find a healthpack. Running out of air? Find a healthpack. Armor levels low because you've taken one too many missiles to the face? Find a healthpack.
Honestly, how hard could it be to engineer something like this? And once mass-produced, they'd be cheap as free. That alone would save untold billions a year. Maybe even trillions. You'd only have to go to the doctor for really serious problems - diseases or conditions that require a cutscene, such as being invaded by nanobots or some kind of space bacteria.
Dean Kamen invented a scooter that balances on two wheels. That's pretty dumb. Next he invented a machine that can turn muddy, toxic sludge into pure drinking water for pennies a day. That's pretty awesome. I think President Obama should make him the Technology/Healthpack czar and set him to work inventing the healthpack.
Tomorrow the president will address a joint session of Congress to try and get the healthcare train back on track. It'll be interesting to see if he's noticed the three main issues, which I have conveniently bulleted here. I'll also be watching out for the healthpack. It's time America had decent, reliable and affordable healthcare for all, and only the healthpack can provide it.
President Obama has made healthcare reform a Big Deal - possibly the deal on which he hopes to cement his legacy. But there's a problem. In spite of his eloquence, he has been unable to articulate any kind of reform ideas. Will their be a public option or not? Will it be government run or co-op? What does this trigger business mean?
Most of this stuff is not his fault, as all 535 members of Congress have been running around, each seemingly supporting a different kind of reform.
In this post, I'll do two things that our beloved federal government have been unable to accomplish:
1). Enumerate the problems.
2). Provide a solution.
First, the problems. It's very simple, really. If you watch the news or look at any of the polls, the American people seem to want three things (in no particular order):
A. Tort reform. It's not rocket science. "Healthcare" lawyers (like John Edwards before he was a senator) see the insurance companies as giant pots of gold - money for the taking. All they need is fifteen minutes and a client willing to sue his or her doctor for forgetting to order that MRI. Most of us understand that such a mentality can't continue, and that if we just clamped down a little on these freeloaders (without squashing the rights of patients - there's always that fine balance), then we'd save literally tons of money.
For example, I have a friend who is an anesthesiologist. When he finally becomes a full-fledged one, he'll command what seems like an outrageous salary - until you learn that fully half of it must go to malpractice insurance. And that's before taxes. Clearly, something is broken there.
B. Pre-existing conditions. It's just not right that someone should be denied the ability to go see the doctor if they get the flu simply because they're diabetic, or have leukemia, or any of a thousand other things. I don't really see how this will help drive down costs, but it should be done because it's the right thing to do.
C. Interstate healthcare. This is absolutely ridiculous as well. Why can't we buy insurance from the company with the best price? I live in New Jersey, which until recently had absolutely obscene car insurance prices because of the socialized way in which they tried to provide coverage to "everyone." What ended up happening is that folks tried to drop off the radar and drive without it - thus continually driving up everyone else's premiums.
Not to mention companies pulled out of the state altogether, which reduced competition, which drove up prices. And finally shady fly-by-night companies sprang up everywhere offering cheap insurance for those who couldn't afford it. You can guess what happened to those folks when they got into an accident or needed help otherwise.
It's similar with health insurance companies, only for some reason we've accepted it as normal in all 50 states. Company A might be able to give me better coverage at a lower price, but because they're in Nevada and I'm not, I can't buy from them. That is stupid. There are no good reasons for keeping something like that going.
So those are the things that need fixing. Now for the fixer!
Healthpacks.
That's right. Those universal items we find in almost every video game. You can be dying of multiple gunshot wounds to the torso, yet if you find a little box with a red plus on it, you are immediately back in the game. Similarly, you can be fighting intergalactic baddies across the cosmos, lose an arm and a leg, and yet when that familiar white box comes into view, you know the day will only get brighter. Been poisoned? Find a healthpack. Running out of air? Find a healthpack. Armor levels low because you've taken one too many missiles to the face? Find a healthpack.
Honestly, how hard could it be to engineer something like this? And once mass-produced, they'd be cheap as free. That alone would save untold billions a year. Maybe even trillions. You'd only have to go to the doctor for really serious problems - diseases or conditions that require a cutscene, such as being invaded by nanobots or some kind of space bacteria.
Dean Kamen invented a scooter that balances on two wheels. That's pretty dumb. Next he invented a machine that can turn muddy, toxic sludge into pure drinking water for pennies a day. That's pretty awesome. I think President Obama should make him the Technology/Healthpack czar and set him to work inventing the healthpack.
Tomorrow the president will address a joint session of Congress to try and get the healthcare train back on track. It'll be interesting to see if he's noticed the three main issues, which I have conveniently bulleted here. I'll also be watching out for the healthpack. It's time America had decent, reliable and affordable healthcare for all, and only the healthpack can provide it.
Friday, September 4, 2009
The Other M
As a long time Metroid fan, I was excited to hear about a new Metroid game, especially one that breaks from the recent Prime template of first person perspective. I don't have a Wii, but this game may be the reason to finally get one, or wait a year and get a used one and this game at over half off. That would rule.
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how the game develops. It's described as an "action brawler" whatever that means. Sounds like it'll use good-old fashioned controls, and not the gimicky Wii wand.
Or whatever it's called.
I was skeptical about Metroid Prime, especially when I learned it would be first-person. I enjoyed that game and its sequel, though - but perhaps not as much as if they'd done something along the lines of Shadow Complex. The trailer for The Other M looks awesome, with a mixture of 2D and 3D gameplay. Hopefully the right mixture. I never played God of War, but I did play Devil May Cry, and that kind of action is just what the Metroid universe needs.
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how the game develops. It's described as an "action brawler" whatever that means. Sounds like it'll use good-old fashioned controls, and not the gimicky Wii wand.
Or whatever it's called.
I was skeptical about Metroid Prime, especially when I learned it would be first-person. I enjoyed that game and its sequel, though - but perhaps not as much as if they'd done something along the lines of Shadow Complex. The trailer for The Other M looks awesome, with a mixture of 2D and 3D gameplay. Hopefully the right mixture. I never played God of War, but I did play Devil May Cry, and that kind of action is just what the Metroid universe needs.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Shadow Complex IS Retro
I've been playing the XBLA game Shadow Complex for a couple of weeks now, and I love it.
Set in the near future within Orson Scott Card's Empire fiction, the game follows Jason Flemming as his hiking date in the mountains of Washington goes horribly wrong. What follows is old-school action at its finest, with a few modern twists.
In fact, the game play is both a copy of and homage to one of the greatest 2D games of all time, the SNES game Super Metroid. Not only is the map system nearly identical, but there's even a Master Challenge called "Jason Bailey," in which the player must collect 100% of the items in the game in under two hours. The reference is to a code that could be input into the original Metroid on NES. On the code screen, putting in JUSTIN BAILEY followed by all dashes in the lower section put the player in the middle of the action with 255 missiles, 5 energy tanks, and a rather underdressed Samus. Hence, the icon for the challenge is a pair of tighty whities.
In addition, as I found out in Game Informer, it turns out that Howard Phillips, who helped bring us the original NES, and Metroid, also helped bring this title to fruition.
But the similarities don't end there. Throughout the course of the game, Jason acquires missiles, super speed, a secondary (and tertiary) jump ability, a grappling hook, and even limited invincibility. But Chair went further and threw in an excellent control scheme. The left stick is for movement and aiming, but the right stick can also be used to aim more precisely, and in any direction. This is an option I would've killed for back in the day, and it really makes 2D gaming shine again. I hope more retro-style games adopt this control scheme.
That said, the controls aren't as tight as some of the older SNES favorites, though they are good. The boss fights are also a little lacking. They're fun and all, but killing generic enemies just isn't as fun as taking on a valued henchman like Kraid or Ridley.
But the graphics and special effects are superb, as is the sound. The cutscenes are even passable and can be skipped (for those high speed runs).
All in all, I think this game is fantastic, and should not be missed. If you have an XBox 360, you need Shadow Complex. And developers, if you're listening, you need to make more budget titles like this one. I've got a kid now, and just can't afford to throw 30-50 hours at a full fledged game. But Shadow Complex was just right, and the high replay value of the challenges and Leaderboards means I'll be coming back to it again and again. Keep this kind of thing coming.
Set in the near future within Orson Scott Card's Empire fiction, the game follows Jason Flemming as his hiking date in the mountains of Washington goes horribly wrong. What follows is old-school action at its finest, with a few modern twists.
In fact, the game play is both a copy of and homage to one of the greatest 2D games of all time, the SNES game Super Metroid. Not only is the map system nearly identical, but there's even a Master Challenge called "Jason Bailey," in which the player must collect 100% of the items in the game in under two hours. The reference is to a code that could be input into the original Metroid on NES. On the code screen, putting in JUSTIN BAILEY followed by all dashes in the lower section put the player in the middle of the action with 255 missiles, 5 energy tanks, and a rather underdressed Samus. Hence, the icon for the challenge is a pair of tighty whities.
In addition, as I found out in Game Informer, it turns out that Howard Phillips, who helped bring us the original NES, and Metroid, also helped bring this title to fruition.
But the similarities don't end there. Throughout the course of the game, Jason acquires missiles, super speed, a secondary (and tertiary) jump ability, a grappling hook, and even limited invincibility. But Chair went further and threw in an excellent control scheme. The left stick is for movement and aiming, but the right stick can also be used to aim more precisely, and in any direction. This is an option I would've killed for back in the day, and it really makes 2D gaming shine again. I hope more retro-style games adopt this control scheme.
That said, the controls aren't as tight as some of the older SNES favorites, though they are good. The boss fights are also a little lacking. They're fun and all, but killing generic enemies just isn't as fun as taking on a valued henchman like Kraid or Ridley.
But the graphics and special effects are superb, as is the sound. The cutscenes are even passable and can be skipped (for those high speed runs).
All in all, I think this game is fantastic, and should not be missed. If you have an XBox 360, you need Shadow Complex. And developers, if you're listening, you need to make more budget titles like this one. I've got a kid now, and just can't afford to throw 30-50 hours at a full fledged game. But Shadow Complex was just right, and the high replay value of the challenges and Leaderboards means I'll be coming back to it again and again. Keep this kind of thing coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)