I've heard about Carlos Mencia's joke stealing; and now it's apparently come to a head:
http://www.joerogan.net/main.php?archives=1&article=53945
Apparently it's not new, so says Joe "you's crazy" Rogan:
http://www.joerogan.net/main.php?archives=1&article=53945
Joe makes an interesting case - I wonder how this will develop further? No more "Mind of Mencia"?
I won't cry.
....
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
I've been looking at some of this energy crisis stuff as of late, where will gas prices be?
Oregon State has a nice graph (others cite higher or lower values for given years, but remain relatively consistent):
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm
Keep in mind the price increases of the 70's were more artificial (political) than the current situation. As of today the problem is with actual supply/demand issues - we are coming close to full capacity.
Nonetheless, I see many arguments that gas was $2 in 1950 (adjusted for inflation). And that's true, but at that time the world's supply of oil was increasing. Now that is not the case.
With prominent people making dire predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Simmons - look near the bottom at his bet.
Even worse, this guy makes it look like we're, well ... fucked:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
While I think that site is overreaching a little, because there are many factors that can delay and soften the blow. Unless it does happen as quickly as it could: prices quadrupling in a matter of weeks (a barrel of oil hitting that $200 mark). The issue isn't the price per se, it's the rapid advance to that price - several weeks.
In the USA, this would destroy many communities that I know. I hear about people all the time that have hour+ communtes, 50 miles one way, etc. Not to mention nasty inflation given that everything from plastics to food. Long story short, this creates lot's of instability. And the big question is how much, it will most probably create a long term recession, or it could go all the way to the dark ages of chaos. Well probably not the latter, except in specific areas.
I'm certainly curious on the specifics of such repercussions. But the usual applies, and you better make sure you have a financial cushion. For my own curiousity I'm going to find more details about this. Many are already available, so research away!
So that's why I've decided to live a bit greener... and with the above in mind, cheaper in the long term. More on this to come...
Oregon State has a nice graph (others cite higher or lower values for given years, but remain relatively consistent):
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm
Keep in mind the price increases of the 70's were more artificial (political) than the current situation. As of today the problem is with actual supply/demand issues - we are coming close to full capacity.
Nonetheless, I see many arguments that gas was $2 in 1950 (adjusted for inflation). And that's true, but at that time the world's supply of oil was increasing. Now that is not the case.
With prominent people making dire predictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Simmons - look near the bottom at his bet.
Even worse, this guy makes it look like we're, well ... fucked:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
While I think that site is overreaching a little, because there are many factors that can delay and soften the blow. Unless it does happen as quickly as it could: prices quadrupling in a matter of weeks (a barrel of oil hitting that $200 mark). The issue isn't the price per se, it's the rapid advance to that price - several weeks.
In the USA, this would destroy many communities that I know. I hear about people all the time that have hour+ communtes, 50 miles one way, etc. Not to mention nasty inflation given that everything from plastics to food. Long story short, this creates lot's of instability. And the big question is how much, it will most probably create a long term recession, or it could go all the way to the dark ages of chaos. Well probably not the latter, except in specific areas.
I'm certainly curious on the specifics of such repercussions. But the usual applies, and you better make sure you have a financial cushion. For my own curiousity I'm going to find more details about this. Many are already available, so research away!
So that's why I've decided to live a bit greener... and with the above in mind, cheaper in the long term. More on this to come...
Remember Reggie White? Defensive Lineman for the Green Bay Packers. He ranks in the hall of fame of athletes who need the Crash Davis School of Interviewing ("I'm just glad to be here", "I just wanna make a contribution to the ball club").
http://www.skeptictank.org/white.htm
I still think of Tracy Morgan's immitation (4/4/98):
Tracy: "And you know big midgets."
Colin Quinn: "You mean people?"
Tracy: "Yeah, hate them too."
Classic.
http://www.skeptictank.org/white.htm
I still think of Tracy Morgan's immitation (4/4/98):
Tracy: "And you know big midgets."
Colin Quinn: "You mean people?"
Tracy: "Yeah, hate them too."
Classic.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
The questions are a bit weird: "No one can feel naturally homosexual." Ummm... Agree, disagree, ... Pat Buchanan?
I took one of these before, but it had different questions (way different questions). Interestingly I came out in roughly the same spot (maybe more economically right).
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Saturday, January 27, 2007
A post I emailed dealing with the ticking time bomb rationale for torture:
///start email
I came upon your "Once Upon a Time..." blog, and this article on torture; specifically the ticking-bomb scenario.
In Cornelius Ryan's book A Bridge Too Far, at the start of Operation Market Garden (which is what the book is about), the land invasion of the Netherlands from Belgium was instantly met with heavy anti-tank fire (taking out some 9 of 15 tanks of the tank platoon that spearheaded the operation). The way this was reportedly stopped is quite similar to a ticking-bomb scenario. The British troops captured some forward infantry (sentries or spotters for the anti-tank guns hidden somewhere in the woods firing on the tanks). The captured Germans were rushed over to a truck where they were aggressively interrogated: the interrogator pushed a pistol into one of the German's ribs and barked at him in German, asking him where the guns were hidden. I forget the exact details because I don't have the book in front of me, nonetheless, the a capture German revealed -well enough- the positions of the anti-tank guns, after which the guns were disable via counter-battery fire.
While ticking-bombs in cities with civilians are different then active fire on soldiers - the information they had are basically the same: they knew about the guns (obviously), and they had a good idea that one of the captured soldiers knew the location (although not necessarily true, I suppose - give the situation that rational was that it was "worth a try" - more on that in a second). The major difference being that they were already under attack - this would be like the bomb situation if a bomb had already gone off, and there was another with the potential to go off.
The multiple bomb situation was actually hit on with a British documentary (where London is hit by a dirty bomb), but interestingly enough they stopped the second bomb with good ol' fashioned police work. I wish I remembered the name of it...
As for the "worth a try" rational, it's dicey: in this situation they did not KNOW the soldiers knew the guns locations, just a good guess (at the very least to get a lead on the locations). But with this situation many questions come to mind? What happens if these Germans had no clue about the location? Would they have been shot? (or at least one of them to prove the seriousness of the interrogator). What if you shot them and still got no information? Unfortunately these situations are rarely told, probably for the reason that no one wants to be thought of as a murderer - even in so called "good" wars like World War II.
My own conclusions are unsure. There are other examples of on the spot interrogation yielding results, but with the failures rarely being reported (probably) it's hard to gauge how affective it is. In the example above, this scenario was a life-or-death struggle. If we don't stop these guns we are dead. But like you say KNOWing about the bomb is probably unlikely - the intelligence would probably be more general. The scary thing is if this is used as a substitute for actually investigative police work. As noted about the NKVD (the KGB prior to the KGB) was that they eventually degenerated into thugs that only knew how to torture, and thus useless in actual investigations. It got so bad Stalin (the main boss himself) had to disband them, because they became much worse than the enemy/criminals. It's just not a substitute for traditional police work. That and the main problem just keeps biting at you - how do you KNOW the person you are beating on or what-have-you knows the information? With the number of people released from Guantanamo cleared of being evil shows that KNOWing is rarely obvious. With that in mind, I think I would be right next to the interrogator poking at the German soldiers on their gun positions before the truck I'm in takes a round.
Unfortunately that's how this fear thing works so well, the proponents make you fear that you are in that truck, that it's them or us; even when it's a rare ... or impossible event. United 93 may be a good example.
I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
///end email
Btw, one of my own misunderstandings is the difference between torture and interrogation; which may explain some of my email. Google ticking time-bomb and you'll get a number of articles about this; 'tis interesting. And frankly I can't find the exact post I'm replying to here... just the blog:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
///start email
I came upon your "Once Upon a Time..." blog, and this article on torture; specifically the ticking-bomb scenario.
In Cornelius Ryan's book A Bridge Too Far, at the start of Operation Market Garden (which is what the book is about), the land invasion of the Netherlands from Belgium was instantly met with heavy anti-tank fire (taking out some 9 of 15 tanks of the tank platoon that spearheaded the operation). The way this was reportedly stopped is quite similar to a ticking-bomb scenario. The British troops captured some forward infantry (sentries or spotters for the anti-tank guns hidden somewhere in the woods firing on the tanks). The captured Germans were rushed over to a truck where they were aggressively interrogated: the interrogator pushed a pistol into one of the German's ribs and barked at him in German, asking him where the guns were hidden. I forget the exact details because I don't have the book in front of me, nonetheless, the a capture German revealed -well enough- the positions of the anti-tank guns, after which the guns were disable via counter-battery fire.
While ticking-bombs in cities with civilians are different then active fire on soldiers - the information they had are basically the same: they knew about the guns (obviously), and they had a good idea that one of the captured soldiers knew the location (although not necessarily true, I suppose - give the situation that rational was that it was "worth a try" - more on that in a second). The major difference being that they were already under attack - this would be like the bomb situation if a bomb had already gone off, and there was another with the potential to go off.
The multiple bomb situation was actually hit on with a British documentary (where London is hit by a dirty bomb), but interestingly enough they stopped the second bomb with good ol' fashioned police work. I wish I remembered the name of it...
As for the "worth a try" rational, it's dicey: in this situation they did not KNOW the soldiers knew the guns locations, just a good guess (at the very least to get a lead on the locations). But with this situation many questions come to mind? What happens if these Germans had no clue about the location? Would they have been shot? (or at least one of them to prove the seriousness of the interrogator). What if you shot them and still got no information? Unfortunately these situations are rarely told, probably for the reason that no one wants to be thought of as a murderer - even in so called "good" wars like World War II.
My own conclusions are unsure. There are other examples of on the spot interrogation yielding results, but with the failures rarely being reported (probably) it's hard to gauge how affective it is. In the example above, this scenario was a life-or-death struggle. If we don't stop these guns we are dead. But like you say KNOWing about the bomb is probably unlikely - the intelligence would probably be more general. The scary thing is if this is used as a substitute for actually investigative police work. As noted about the NKVD (the KGB prior to the KGB) was that they eventually degenerated into thugs that only knew how to torture, and thus useless in actual investigations. It got so bad Stalin (the main boss himself) had to disband them, because they became much worse than the enemy/criminals. It's just not a substitute for traditional police work. That and the main problem just keeps biting at you - how do you KNOW the person you are beating on or what-have-you knows the information? With the number of people released from Guantanamo cleared of being evil shows that KNOWing is rarely obvious. With that in mind, I think I would be right next to the interrogator poking at the German soldiers on their gun positions before the truck I'm in takes a round.
Unfortunately that's how this fear thing works so well, the proponents make you fear that you are in that truck, that it's them or us; even when it's a rare ... or impossible event. United 93 may be a good example.
I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thank you.
///end email
Btw, one of my own misunderstandings is the difference between torture and interrogation; which may explain some of my email. Google ticking time-bomb and you'll get a number of articles about this; 'tis interesting. And frankly I can't find the exact post I'm replying to here... just the blog:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Real quick... I see that I haven't posted in a while. Time to post again.
Besides do cursory work on Fearann Muin, I've also got a little project of my own to dabble in. Right now I'm simply calling it "strong", short for "Stronghold" - the original game that strong is loosely based on).
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/stronghold/ - the game does have a number of problems. But I like the basic idea, and some of the concepts aren't bad. The major problem with the game is the micromanagement: in building and war. Kind of important parts of the game. In building, you can allocate the proportions of 3 different things - building, training, recruiting, with the default being 50%, 25%, 25% respectively. The annoying part is your rarely building - and when you do building you usually want the allocation to be at 100% for build. If your not building you'll want some combination of the other two. While you can ignore changing it - it annoys me to not even be close to full potential with what I want it to do - so I micromanage.
Combat is even worse. The terrain is layed out in a series of tiles. To get units to attack a tile (where an enemy is) you must attract them. Before I get into that, here is a quick explanation on attraction - I go to a tile and select on of my main players (you get up to 5, each with it's own class/race - elves, thieves, halflings, fighters) I click on a bad and "attract" how every many loose units I want to the tile. I call them "loose" units, although a better term would be "unhomed", for a unit can be one of three things: homed (the unit will not move when attracted), unassigned (the unit will move when attracted), and ready (this means it will be among the first to move when attracted - giving it priority of unassigned units). With these two things in mind (the 5 different players you control, and the goofy idea of attraction) it's incredibly painful to do any military campaigning. You much move each unit in relation to it's player, so in essense you'll have 5 separate armies. On top of that, it's hard to attract (and thus attack) in an orderly fashion. It makes the game much harder than necessary (give the AI is hilariously bad). You spend a painful amount of time simply assembling units where you want them - juggling your elves, fighters, etc. separately. It's a hair pulling experience. One that could have been made stupidly easy by allowing grouping of units and the ability to simple say attack tile x,y.
The terminology "attraction" annoys me in an of itself - as though this is the AD&D version of eHarmony.com.
Fortunately the AI is incredibly stupid. They ignore you for the most part. So you can run across their lands and kill them one or two at a time. Although since move units by "attraction" it's usually easy to just make a bee-line for the enemies stronghold and take it out. The enemies units then, in armageddon style, all march straight for your nearest stronghold. But they don't even group themselves for maximum effect. You'll more than like fight them 1 or 2 at a time if you place a number of guys between them and your nearest stronghold (it doesn't take very long to get good at guessing the route they will take). It's as if Canada took out Washington DC and every American simply dropped what they were doing and marched on over to Ottawa to burn it to the ground (ignoring everything else eccept for what was directly in your path). It's very funny, and very predictable. Too predictable.
Still building is fun, the idea that in AD&D style your player's attributes affect your units is interesting, the seasons affect on crops, and the idea that where you farm affects your farms output (mountains = bad, near rivers = good!).
So change some mechanics (movement), make the AI better (relative to this AI that's no problem), and nullify alot of the micromanagement and you have yourself a simple but enjoyable game.
That is what I intend to do.
Besides do cursory work on Fearann Muin, I've also got a little project of my own to dabble in. Right now I'm simply calling it "strong", short for "Stronghold" - the original game that strong is loosely based on).
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/stronghold/ - the game does have a number of problems. But I like the basic idea, and some of the concepts aren't bad. The major problem with the game is the micromanagement: in building and war. Kind of important parts of the game. In building, you can allocate the proportions of 3 different things - building, training, recruiting, with the default being 50%, 25%, 25% respectively. The annoying part is your rarely building - and when you do building you usually want the allocation to be at 100% for build. If your not building you'll want some combination of the other two. While you can ignore changing it - it annoys me to not even be close to full potential with what I want it to do - so I micromanage.
Combat is even worse. The terrain is layed out in a series of tiles. To get units to attack a tile (where an enemy is) you must attract them. Before I get into that, here is a quick explanation on attraction - I go to a tile and select on of my main players (you get up to 5, each with it's own class/race - elves, thieves, halflings, fighters) I click on a bad and "attract" how every many loose units I want to the tile. I call them "loose" units, although a better term would be "unhomed", for a unit can be one of three things: homed (the unit will not move when attracted), unassigned (the unit will move when attracted), and ready (this means it will be among the first to move when attracted - giving it priority of unassigned units). With these two things in mind (the 5 different players you control, and the goofy idea of attraction) it's incredibly painful to do any military campaigning. You much move each unit in relation to it's player, so in essense you'll have 5 separate armies. On top of that, it's hard to attract (and thus attack) in an orderly fashion. It makes the game much harder than necessary (give the AI is hilariously bad). You spend a painful amount of time simply assembling units where you want them - juggling your elves, fighters, etc. separately. It's a hair pulling experience. One that could have been made stupidly easy by allowing grouping of units and the ability to simple say attack tile x,y.
The terminology "attraction" annoys me in an of itself - as though this is the AD&D version of eHarmony.com.
Fortunately the AI is incredibly stupid. They ignore you for the most part. So you can run across their lands and kill them one or two at a time. Although since move units by "attraction" it's usually easy to just make a bee-line for the enemies stronghold and take it out. The enemies units then, in armageddon style, all march straight for your nearest stronghold. But they don't even group themselves for maximum effect. You'll more than like fight them 1 or 2 at a time if you place a number of guys between them and your nearest stronghold (it doesn't take very long to get good at guessing the route they will take). It's as if Canada took out Washington DC and every American simply dropped what they were doing and marched on over to Ottawa to burn it to the ground (ignoring everything else eccept for what was directly in your path). It's very funny, and very predictable. Too predictable.
Still building is fun, the idea that in AD&D style your player's attributes affect your units is interesting, the seasons affect on crops, and the idea that where you farm affects your farms output (mountains = bad, near rivers = good!).
So change some mechanics (movement), make the AI better (relative to this AI that's no problem), and nullify alot of the micromanagement and you have yourself a simple but enjoyable game.
That is what I intend to do.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
I'm restarting my dev blog, now that I'm doing something interesting again. I work on Fearann Muin - a Multiplayer Online Roly-Playing Game (MORPG). You may notice the lack of the word 'Massive' - which is used for many a commercial games that are similar - World of Warcraft, Everquest, et al.
While I've been working on development of this game on and off for 1 year and 3/4ths - it's now finally starting to take shape in a number of areas - such as inventory, combat, dialog with NPC's, and trading. While all of these elements are still in there early stages, they are becoming usable.
You can now talk to NPC's in the style of a discussion tree (think Baldur's Gate or any similar ADnD game, as well as countless others. Inventory works (although it's still pretty simple - you can't do anything besides pickup and drop things). Combat works - but you don't really see anything - no animations, just results of basic attackes dumped to the console. And the trading frontend in the client still needs to be written (the backend in the server is done, more-or-less).
If I can keep the work up, these areas will be working in a stable fashion in a month, even if they aren't very feature rich.
The major issues we have are many. We need to work on Collision Detection (CD) in the server - so players can't cheap by walking through walls. This will also keep our own AI from cheating. We are still working on how to deal with this without making it overly complex.
While I've been working on development of this game on and off for 1 year and 3/4ths - it's now finally starting to take shape in a number of areas - such as inventory, combat, dialog with NPC's, and trading. While all of these elements are still in there early stages, they are becoming usable.
You can now talk to NPC's in the style of a discussion tree (think Baldur's Gate or any similar ADnD game, as well as countless others. Inventory works (although it's still pretty simple - you can't do anything besides pickup and drop things). Combat works - but you don't really see anything - no animations, just results of basic attackes dumped to the console. And the trading frontend in the client still needs to be written (the backend in the server is done, more-or-less).
If I can keep the work up, these areas will be working in a stable fashion in a month, even if they aren't very feature rich.
The major issues we have are many. We need to work on Collision Detection (CD) in the server - so players can't cheap by walking through walls. This will also keep our own AI from cheating. We are still working on how to deal with this without making it overly complex.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)