Created by Oatmeal
I wish it were more specific about what I screwed up.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Internet "Censorship"
As I've occasionally mentioned in posts before, comments to the Saga are screened before they are published. Yes, I reserve the right to decide what appears on my blog.
I seldom refuse to publish a comment. If someone disagrees with me, I usually want their comments to be seen. Either they made a good point that I should address, or they helped me make mine through their absurdity. Most of the comments that I've refused to publish have just been spam.
But let's make no mistake: if I don't publish your comment, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech. Respecting your freedom of speech does not require me to let you stand on my soap box. You can start your own no-cost blog just as easily as I did. That's why I have multiple blog articles that respond to Allecto: I understand that she blocks critical comments and that she has every right to do so. I can be critical of her on my own blog.
This is not a response to any complaints about my actions: it's a general broadcast. I've seen people complain that so-and-so screens comments on their blog or doesn't allow comments on their YouTube videos or "unfriends" people on Facebook. So what? It's their blog, their channel, their Facebook account! They have no obligation to publish anyone else's opinion. If you want to say something, you can start your own blog or channel. Your freedom of expression is not infringed just because someone else doesn't give you free access to their media channel.
End of rant.
I seldom refuse to publish a comment. If someone disagrees with me, I usually want their comments to be seen. Either they made a good point that I should address, or they helped me make mine through their absurdity. Most of the comments that I've refused to publish have just been spam.
But let's make no mistake: if I don't publish your comment, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech. Respecting your freedom of speech does not require me to let you stand on my soap box. You can start your own no-cost blog just as easily as I did. That's why I have multiple blog articles that respond to Allecto: I understand that she blocks critical comments and that she has every right to do so. I can be critical of her on my own blog.
This is not a response to any complaints about my actions: it's a general broadcast. I've seen people complain that so-and-so screens comments on their blog or doesn't allow comments on their YouTube videos or "unfriends" people on Facebook. So what? It's their blog, their channel, their Facebook account! They have no obligation to publish anyone else's opinion. If you want to say something, you can start your own blog or channel. Your freedom of expression is not infringed just because someone else doesn't give you free access to their media channel.
End of rant.
Saturday, March 09, 2013
"ME3: Citadel" Review
I finished the "Citadel" DLC last night, and I have comments. Naturally they'll be spoileriffic, so I'll do the real discussion after a jump, but overall I enjoyed the main plot.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
ME3: Reckoning
BioWare is determined to squander more of my time. They released the "Reckoning" DLC for Mass Effect 3 multiplayer yesterday.
Yes, of course I downloaded it. To my credit, I only played one mission before going to bed instead of staying up until some ungodly hour.
They very kindly give you one of the new characters as a gift when you download the expansion, and I scored the Krogan Warlord. It's the first Krogan character I have had the chance to play. I must say that I rather like him. He's designed to perform well without any worries about "cooldown" times on "powers". His powers are all things that you can start and then forget, as they're all armor enhancements or weapon enhancements.
He's quite the brute in play, too. I equipped him with a nasty shotgun, but I hardly ever use it, preferring to smash things with a power hammer. He's also a brick when it comes to durability: the game I played was against the Collectors, and it took a Praetorian to get him down. He was going toe-to-toe with Scions and winning (on the low difficulty setting, Bronze, of course). Quite a change from the other characters I've played: he's very much a "run up and smash it in the face" sort of character.
Good times.
Yes, of course I downloaded it. To my credit, I only played one mission before going to bed instead of staying up until some ungodly hour.
They very kindly give you one of the new characters as a gift when you download the expansion, and I scored the Krogan Warlord. It's the first Krogan character I have had the chance to play. I must say that I rather like him. He's designed to perform well without any worries about "cooldown" times on "powers". His powers are all things that you can start and then forget, as they're all armor enhancements or weapon enhancements.
He's quite the brute in play, too. I equipped him with a nasty shotgun, but I hardly ever use it, preferring to smash things with a power hammer. He's also a brick when it comes to durability: the game I played was against the Collectors, and it took a Praetorian to get him down. He was going toe-to-toe with Scions and winning (on the low difficulty setting, Bronze, of course). Quite a change from the other characters I've played: he's very much a "run up and smash it in the face" sort of character.
Good times.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Is That A Fact? - Gun Statistics
The Sandy Hook school shootings started another wave of interest in gun control legislation in the United States. Naturally, there are people who oppose tighter gun regulation, and I understand their view point. That doesn't mean I'm going to give them any slack on abusing statitics, though. This image is a recent example from Facebook.
In 1996, there was a mass shooting incident in Australia. It triggered a wave of interest in gun control legislation much as Sandy Hook has done in America. In Australia's case, new gun regulations were passed and implemented in 1997. Anti-Gun-Control activists like to cite some damning (but unsubstantiated) statistics about the effects of those regulations.
What we get are reports like those in the image: lists of percentages with no explanation of where the data was obtained or how the statistics were calculated. A scientific paper would require that kind of information, as scientists expect to be able to check each others' work. A bunch of percentages in a vacuum tell us nothing.
Gun legislation in Australia has been more restrictive than in the USA for decades, and gun ownership rates there have likewise been lower for a long time. The 1997 laws placed new restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Gun violence in Australia was declining before the new rules were passed, and gun violence has continued to decline since. There are disputes over whether the new regulations made a difference, because there has not been a significant change in the rate of decline since their passage.
I don't expect the "assault weapons" ban to have a major impact on gun crime in the USA. According to FBI statistics, rifles of any kind are used in less than 6% of homicides in the USA (this figure includes homicides involving a firearm of unspecified type). The most prevalent weapons by far in homicides in this country are handguns, accounting for nearly half of all homicides.
I'm annoyed with people who share these kinds of statistics, since I'm pretty sure that they don't do even a small amount of fact-checking before they start spreading this kind of misinformation (otherwise, they wouldn't be spreading it). I'm downright angry at the people who initiate this kind of "viral" disinformation, because they are shamelessly lying to people about the effects of gun legislation on society.
In 1996, there was a mass shooting incident in Australia. It triggered a wave of interest in gun control legislation much as Sandy Hook has done in America. In Australia's case, new gun regulations were passed and implemented in 1997. Anti-Gun-Control activists like to cite some damning (but unsubstantiated) statistics about the effects of those regulations.
What we get are reports like those in the image: lists of percentages with no explanation of where the data was obtained or how the statistics were calculated. A scientific paper would require that kind of information, as scientists expect to be able to check each others' work. A bunch of percentages in a vacuum tell us nothing.
Gun legislation in Australia has been more restrictive than in the USA for decades, and gun ownership rates there have likewise been lower for a long time. The 1997 laws placed new restrictions on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Gun violence in Australia was declining before the new rules were passed, and gun violence has continued to decline since. There are disputes over whether the new regulations made a difference, because there has not been a significant change in the rate of decline since their passage.
I don't expect the "assault weapons" ban to have a major impact on gun crime in the USA. According to FBI statistics, rifles of any kind are used in less than 6% of homicides in the USA (this figure includes homicides involving a firearm of unspecified type). The most prevalent weapons by far in homicides in this country are handguns, accounting for nearly half of all homicides.
I'm annoyed with people who share these kinds of statistics, since I'm pretty sure that they don't do even a small amount of fact-checking before they start spreading this kind of misinformation (otherwise, they wouldn't be spreading it). I'm downright angry at the people who initiate this kind of "viral" disinformation, because they are shamelessly lying to people about the effects of gun legislation on society.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Politics: The Election Process
I think that the way we choose candidates is one of the biggest problems with our current political system. It’s bad enough that we have a two-party system, but allowing them to choose our nominees from strictly within the parties lends itself to extremism.
As I see it, the party primaries encourage extremism on both sides. The most extreme members of the electorate tend to be the most likely to participate in the primaries, which means that candidates have to appeal to the extremists to get nominated. There were Republican candidates that I actually would have voted for if they’d been nominated in 2012, but they weren’t hardcore-conservative enough, so they were eliminated early in the primaries.
The party primaries always set up moderate, centrist candidates for failure, even though (in my arrogant opinion) the moderates would have far better chances in the general election, where most of the voters are moderate independents. The candidates with positions closest to the general population are always pushed out by the extremists.
The solution I see is to have open primaries instead of party primaries. On a specific date (probably in August), there’s a general election, and the two candidates with the most votes go to a run-off in November. If someone gets more than half of the votes in the primary, there’s no need for a run-off; that position is already decided.
The open primary would force candidates to try to appeal to the entire electorate during the “primary season”, instead of trying to appeal to the subset of their own party that they consider most likely to get them nominated, and I think that would result in better elected officials.
As I see it, the party primaries encourage extremism on both sides. The most extreme members of the electorate tend to be the most likely to participate in the primaries, which means that candidates have to appeal to the extremists to get nominated. There were Republican candidates that I actually would have voted for if they’d been nominated in 2012, but they weren’t hardcore-conservative enough, so they were eliminated early in the primaries.
The party primaries always set up moderate, centrist candidates for failure, even though (in my arrogant opinion) the moderates would have far better chances in the general election, where most of the voters are moderate independents. The candidates with positions closest to the general population are always pushed out by the extremists.
The solution I see is to have open primaries instead of party primaries. On a specific date (probably in August), there’s a general election, and the two candidates with the most votes go to a run-off in November. If someone gets more than half of the votes in the primary, there’s no need for a run-off; that position is already decided.
The open primary would force candidates to try to appeal to the entire electorate during the “primary season”, instead of trying to appeal to the subset of their own party that they consider most likely to get them nominated, and I think that would result in better elected officials.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Movie Review: Hansel & Gretel – Witch Hunters
I’m way overdue for a blog post, so I’ll throw out a little movie review.
I’d have to say this movie is about what you’d expect: an excuse to throw some action scenes and special effects in front of an audience to make money. That’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes you want a movie to just be fun, rather than some kind of emotion-wrenching drama or thought-provoking social puzzle.
Hansel & Gretel follows the premise that after they survive their experience with the witch of the gingerbread house, they grow up to become professional witch hunters. Their work eventually brings them full circle to the area where they were born, where they will discover what was really happening the night their father lead them into the woods and abandoned them.
It’s pretty much Van Helsing with witches instead of vampires. If you like that sort of thing, then you’ll like Hansel & Gretel.
I’d have to say this movie is about what you’d expect: an excuse to throw some action scenes and special effects in front of an audience to make money. That’s not always a bad thing. Sometimes you want a movie to just be fun, rather than some kind of emotion-wrenching drama or thought-provoking social puzzle.
Hansel & Gretel follows the premise that after they survive their experience with the witch of the gingerbread house, they grow up to become professional witch hunters. Their work eventually brings them full circle to the area where they were born, where they will discover what was really happening the night their father lead them into the woods and abandoned them.
It’s pretty much Van Helsing with witches instead of vampires. If you like that sort of thing, then you’ll like Hansel & Gretel.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Invaded
Before I digress (at length) into video game videos, I offer this short live-action horror flick to my fans who will hate the rest of this post.
And the rest of the last day of the video spree is dedicated to the game that has had me semi-obsessed for seven months: Mass Effect 3.
Even after seven months, it still keeps me entertained, and there are a lot of solid fan-made trailers, too.
And -- because today is Halloween, and because I love it so much -- I also give you this little spoiler of the payoff you get if you bust your ass for three games.
Of course, if you don't bust your ass, things can go horribly wrong.
And finally, you can modify the game to create a zombie apocalypse scenario in multiplayer.
And the rest of the last day of the video spree is dedicated to the game that has had me semi-obsessed for seven months: Mass Effect 3.
Even after seven months, it still keeps me entertained, and there are a lot of solid fan-made trailers, too.
And -- because today is Halloween, and because I love it so much -- I also give you this little spoiler of the payoff you get if you bust your ass for three games.
Of course, if you don't bust your ass, things can go horribly wrong.
And finally, you can modify the game to create a zombie apocalypse scenario in multiplayer.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
The Dark Knight Returns
I've actually been expecting this for years.
I wonder what took them so long.
I wonder what took them so long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
