It was good. And so was the butternut bisque.
Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Timeshift notes
I haven't played the game - I put it on my Gamefly list, but I'm already a little bummed out about it.
I caught the mini-documentary over at Gametrailers, and it looks like the original title had some really cool features. It was going to tell the story of a father who's young daughter had been lost because of changes he made while time traveling. Evidently, changes which also caused the world to shift to one based on steampunk technology. So he has to go set things right.
As a dad, I thought this was a pretty cool idea, and the steampunk element was certainly unique.
But - I guess Sierra wanted something "easier" they could put into a franchise. So now, you are a nameless, mute hero that you never see (kind of like Half-Life), living in a dystopian future (kind of like Half-Life 2) where you have cool time travel powers, but you don't know what the heck is up with the story or why things or happening until you get closer to the end (kind of like - well, you get it).
I saw the original bits they were going to do, and I'm disappointed. They had a cool, original idea with a story that had some emotional impact. Looking at the "new" look and story feel, I can't help but feel like they gave up something great, in exchange for something more ordinary.
Guess I'll find out in a couple of months - or whenever I get around to renting it.
I caught the mini-documentary over at Gametrailers, and it looks like the original title had some really cool features. It was going to tell the story of a father who's young daughter had been lost because of changes he made while time traveling. Evidently, changes which also caused the world to shift to one based on steampunk technology. So he has to go set things right.
As a dad, I thought this was a pretty cool idea, and the steampunk element was certainly unique.
But - I guess Sierra wanted something "easier" they could put into a franchise. So now, you are a nameless, mute hero that you never see (kind of like Half-Life), living in a dystopian future (kind of like Half-Life 2) where you have cool time travel powers, but you don't know what the heck is up with the story or why things or happening until you get closer to the end (kind of like - well, you get it).
I saw the original bits they were going to do, and I'm disappointed. They had a cool, original idea with a story that had some emotional impact. Looking at the "new" look and story feel, I can't help but feel like they gave up something great, in exchange for something more ordinary.
Guess I'll find out in a couple of months - or whenever I get around to renting it.
Why hold open trials
Recently, Spain sentanced terrorists convicted of, well, terrorism for the Madrid bombings. No "enemy combatant" status, no "prisons held off of the shore", no suspension of habeas corpus. Just good old fashioned trial like it was any other.
This response rather reminds me of when the Philippians prosecuted their terrorists a few years ago.
Using the court system brings the issues to light. It tells people - openly, without fear or prejudice, "This is how these criminals work". Now, all people can see what to avoid.
It brings the arguments and plans of these groups into the open, rather than keeping them in the shadows. Instead of mysterious, unknown reasons other than "They hate our freedoms", their grievances are now part of the public record, and shown where they are faulty in the eyes of the law and the community at large.
This prevents would-be terrorists from recruiting others based on ignorance. It's no longer "The evil infidels/imperials/etc are keeping us down because they hate us" - they lost that argument when the full use of an open court system is used. Then, they are shown that they are "kept down" because they conspire to kill innocent people for their own selfish reasons of power.
It also keeps the government in check - if the government is itself performing actions that are not in keeping with an open and just society, then it will be forced to expose this as well, which means that people can make positive changes *without* resorting to violence and terror.
And finally, the open court system has the same result as "secret renditions and using enemy combatant" techniques does - it puts terrorists and their supporters in jail, or in the execution chamber should the laws of that society demand it. Not in secret, not by violating people's civil rights, but by *using* those rights and legal powers - even on those we would despise the most.
That is what using an open court system does when applied to terrorists. And why the United States should be doing the same.
This response rather reminds me of when the Philippians prosecuted their terrorists a few years ago.
Using the court system brings the issues to light. It tells people - openly, without fear or prejudice, "This is how these criminals work". Now, all people can see what to avoid.
It brings the arguments and plans of these groups into the open, rather than keeping them in the shadows. Instead of mysterious, unknown reasons other than "They hate our freedoms", their grievances are now part of the public record, and shown where they are faulty in the eyes of the law and the community at large.
This prevents would-be terrorists from recruiting others based on ignorance. It's no longer "The evil infidels/imperials/etc are keeping us down because they hate us" - they lost that argument when the full use of an open court system is used. Then, they are shown that they are "kept down" because they conspire to kill innocent people for their own selfish reasons of power.
It also keeps the government in check - if the government is itself performing actions that are not in keeping with an open and just society, then it will be forced to expose this as well, which means that people can make positive changes *without* resorting to violence and terror.
And finally, the open court system has the same result as "secret renditions and using enemy combatant" techniques does - it puts terrorists and their supporters in jail, or in the execution chamber should the laws of that society demand it. Not in secret, not by violating people's civil rights, but by *using* those rights and legal powers - even on those we would despise the most.
That is what using an open court system does when applied to terrorists. And why the United States should be doing the same.
ABA Death Penalty Stay
I saw in the news the other day that the American Bar Association is calling for a halt to all death penalty executions until reforms are made.
This was followed by the Supreme Court giving a halt to some executions until they sort out the lethal injection issue, and whether it's "cruel and unusual".
I noticed that in both cases, they weren't saying that the death penalty in and of itself is wrong - but there's a problem with how it is carried out.
In the ABA's case, they focused on the process. And the statistics. The ABA took a look at things and went "Hm - if you're black, you're more likely to get the death penalty. And if you're black and the victim is white, then you're *really* in trouble, because people seem to think that killing a white person by a black person is more deserving of death than if you kill - well, anybody else."
Compound that with poor people getting more death sentences than rich people, and after awhile, it becomes clear that justice isn't blind - but the scales are being rigged with coins.
A month ago when I was traveling from DC, I was listening to an episode of "Tech Nation" that discussed prison issues in America. The person doing the study was British, and he found an interesting thing. The United States is going through the exact same thinking that the British did about a hundred years ago with prisons.
In the late 1800's and the early 1900's, the British thought they had it figured out as far as prisoners. You punish them - hard. Make their lives a living hell. Are they in debt? Well, then you put them into jail until they could pay their way out, and if they couldn't, then it would take them longer to learn their lesson! While in jail, give them the most menial tasks. In some cases, literally just sitting around breaking rocks, to remind them of how awful the experience was. The goal was to make prison life so unbearable, that upon getting out the criminal would decide never to go back. They would have been Punished, and thereby would learn.
The problem, they discovered, is that the prisoners would get out of jail even worse than before. They would go on to be even worse criminals.
So, the British system changed, and stopped being about punishment, and about reform. Eventually, things got better. Crime dropped. It's no paradise - but it certainly lead to a better system than they had before.
Now, America is in the same place. During the 1970's Perry Mason was The Lawyer to watch on TV. Now, Law and Order dominates three different shows, showing how those nasty, slimy defense attorneys do everything to protect their obviously guilty clients. We have supermax prisons where inmates get no TV, no time together, treated as little more than dangerous animals.
Sure - prisoners are bad people. But - where are the efforts to change them? Why are our new prison complexes being supported now by huge businesses which have no vested interest in getting prisoners to stop committing crimes?
Think about the latter for a second. If you're a business who builds, owns, and runs a prison - why would you want prisoners to ever leave, or leave and never come back? That's only going to ruin your business!
I don't want prisoners coddled. I don't want the death penalty to change. But - I do want some changes:
1. Changes in trials. I've been thinking about this one for some time, and I'm not sure on how it would be implemented. But I go back to a story in "Freakanomics", where the classical music industry changed so that judges would not be allowed to see prospective players, only listen to their music. This simple change lead to the "knowledge" that women could not play instruments as well as men being changed, and today the ratio between professional men and women in orchestras is nearly 50/50.
Juries look at a person in a bench, and from the ABA's discovery, race clearly plays an issue. They see a black person, a white victim, and death is more likely. I can't help but wonder what would happen if the jury could not see the victim, or the defendant? I know - this is just as impractical. They have to see the evidence. If there's a video tape of the crime, they have to see it.
I don't know how to solve this. Perhaps forcing a jury to be more racially mixed (kind of an affirmative action for jury pools?). I don't know the answer to this one - but clearly the system has to change.
2. Reform, not punishment. I can't say that one enough. Our prisons are *not* about reform. Yes, you need good security to protect inmates and guards. But I also want to see more education. Every prisoners should be exiting with at least a high school education, and hopefully a trade. They should be moved away from their home town so they are away from the influences that "caused them to stray". Post care should be given - not just probation follow ups, but real care, to make sure they are housed and clothed and healthy and working.
Remove any excuses for blaming it on bad home life. Daily therapy at prison so there's no reason why a prisoner won't know why they are being punished, why committing crimes is "bad". Follow up therapy to make sure they're remaining productive.
3. Give the death penalty only when they can not be taught. If a person gets all of the breaks I outline above, then - and only then - can we enforce the death penalty, because then a prisoner will have proven to us that they can not (or will not) be taught how to function in society.
It will be expensive, but I'm willing to bet if we do it right the first time, we'll reduce crime over the long term, and that will save us more money than just building more prisons.
Now the question is: what next?
This was followed by the Supreme Court giving a halt to some executions until they sort out the lethal injection issue, and whether it's "cruel and unusual".
I noticed that in both cases, they weren't saying that the death penalty in and of itself is wrong - but there's a problem with how it is carried out.
In the ABA's case, they focused on the process. And the statistics. The ABA took a look at things and went "Hm - if you're black, you're more likely to get the death penalty. And if you're black and the victim is white, then you're *really* in trouble, because people seem to think that killing a white person by a black person is more deserving of death than if you kill - well, anybody else."
Compound that with poor people getting more death sentences than rich people, and after awhile, it becomes clear that justice isn't blind - but the scales are being rigged with coins.
A month ago when I was traveling from DC, I was listening to an episode of "Tech Nation" that discussed prison issues in America. The person doing the study was British, and he found an interesting thing. The United States is going through the exact same thinking that the British did about a hundred years ago with prisons.
In the late 1800's and the early 1900's, the British thought they had it figured out as far as prisoners. You punish them - hard. Make their lives a living hell. Are they in debt? Well, then you put them into jail until they could pay their way out, and if they couldn't, then it would take them longer to learn their lesson! While in jail, give them the most menial tasks. In some cases, literally just sitting around breaking rocks, to remind them of how awful the experience was. The goal was to make prison life so unbearable, that upon getting out the criminal would decide never to go back. They would have been Punished, and thereby would learn.
The problem, they discovered, is that the prisoners would get out of jail even worse than before. They would go on to be even worse criminals.
So, the British system changed, and stopped being about punishment, and about reform. Eventually, things got better. Crime dropped. It's no paradise - but it certainly lead to a better system than they had before.
Now, America is in the same place. During the 1970's Perry Mason was The Lawyer to watch on TV. Now, Law and Order dominates three different shows, showing how those nasty, slimy defense attorneys do everything to protect their obviously guilty clients. We have supermax prisons where inmates get no TV, no time together, treated as little more than dangerous animals.
Sure - prisoners are bad people. But - where are the efforts to change them? Why are our new prison complexes being supported now by huge businesses which have no vested interest in getting prisoners to stop committing crimes?
Think about the latter for a second. If you're a business who builds, owns, and runs a prison - why would you want prisoners to ever leave, or leave and never come back? That's only going to ruin your business!
I don't want prisoners coddled. I don't want the death penalty to change. But - I do want some changes:
1. Changes in trials. I've been thinking about this one for some time, and I'm not sure on how it would be implemented. But I go back to a story in "Freakanomics", where the classical music industry changed so that judges would not be allowed to see prospective players, only listen to their music. This simple change lead to the "knowledge" that women could not play instruments as well as men being changed, and today the ratio between professional men and women in orchestras is nearly 50/50.
Juries look at a person in a bench, and from the ABA's discovery, race clearly plays an issue. They see a black person, a white victim, and death is more likely. I can't help but wonder what would happen if the jury could not see the victim, or the defendant? I know - this is just as impractical. They have to see the evidence. If there's a video tape of the crime, they have to see it.
I don't know how to solve this. Perhaps forcing a jury to be more racially mixed (kind of an affirmative action for jury pools?). I don't know the answer to this one - but clearly the system has to change.
2. Reform, not punishment. I can't say that one enough. Our prisons are *not* about reform. Yes, you need good security to protect inmates and guards. But I also want to see more education. Every prisoners should be exiting with at least a high school education, and hopefully a trade. They should be moved away from their home town so they are away from the influences that "caused them to stray". Post care should be given - not just probation follow ups, but real care, to make sure they are housed and clothed and healthy and working.
Remove any excuses for blaming it on bad home life. Daily therapy at prison so there's no reason why a prisoner won't know why they are being punished, why committing crimes is "bad". Follow up therapy to make sure they're remaining productive.
3. Give the death penalty only when they can not be taught. If a person gets all of the breaks I outline above, then - and only then - can we enforce the death penalty, because then a prisoner will have proven to us that they can not (or will not) be taught how to function in society.
It will be expensive, but I'm willing to bet if we do it right the first time, we'll reduce crime over the long term, and that will save us more money than just building more prisons.
Now the question is: what next?
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Boycott the version of Manhunt 2 you can not buy!
Common Sense Media wants people to boycott Manhunt 2.
Mainly, they want people to boycott the version that they downloaded off of the Internet that is the "uncensored version", which you can not buy in stores. The version is stores was "toned down" so it could meet the "M for Mature" rating from the ESRB.
What I find interesting is that they are admitting they are going to be showing information from a version of the game they downloaded.
Which, unless I am mistaken, is a violation of copyright law.
Which, unless I am mistaken, means you could call the Business Software Alliance to perform an investigation of this organization who is illegally pirating software, which is punishable with jail time and a find of around $50,000 per violation found.
So, a law breaking organization wishes to institute a boycott against a version of a game that can only be obtained illegally. Interesting.
Mainly, they want people to boycott the version that they downloaded off of the Internet that is the "uncensored version", which you can not buy in stores. The version is stores was "toned down" so it could meet the "M for Mature" rating from the ESRB.
What I find interesting is that they are admitting they are going to be showing information from a version of the game they downloaded.
Which, unless I am mistaken, is a violation of copyright law.
Which, unless I am mistaken, means you could call the Business Software Alliance to perform an investigation of this organization who is illegally pirating software, which is punishable with jail time and a find of around $50,000 per violation found.
So, a law breaking organization wishes to institute a boycott against a version of a game that can only be obtained illegally. Interesting.
No Google IMAP for me
Google hasn't turned on my IMAP yet. I'm getting bummed out. I really wanted to use that with my iPhone.
Castlevania X disappointments
1. If you want to use the analog stick rather than the face buttons, you have to stop your game. The problem is, the analog stick is very mushy - you might not think you pressed "UP", but according to the game - you did, sucker. Face buttons though don't work for casting spells in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.
2. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night takes *forever* to load once you've unlocked it. And it's not completely widescreen - just zoomed in a little! Sure, it looks great - but so did running it as a PSX on PSP emulated game (instructions at Gamers' Press on how to do that). And, if you emulate it, you can change your control scheme on the fly, get complete screen fillage (even if it is a bit stretched, it still looks pretty good).
You lost some points here, Capcom. I'm a little disappointed.
"Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness", though? Pure awesome. I never finished the original - I don't think I got past Chapter III, so I think I can finish it this time.
2. Castlevania: Symphony of the Night takes *forever* to load once you've unlocked it. And it's not completely widescreen - just zoomed in a little! Sure, it looks great - but so did running it as a PSX on PSP emulated game (instructions at Gamers' Press on how to do that). And, if you emulate it, you can change your control scheme on the fly, get complete screen fillage (even if it is a bit stretched, it still looks pretty good).
You lost some points here, Capcom. I'm a little disappointed.
"Disgaea: Afternoon of Darkness", though? Pure awesome. I never finished the original - I don't think I got past Chapter III, so I think I can finish it this time.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Prices
Walk to the local store from the hotel: Free
Withdrawing $20 from an atm: Free if scary at night
Milk, Corn Pops, bowl, spoon: $12
Not paying hotel price for breakfast so I get to keep $15 a day extra to put into my pocket: pricess
Withdrawing $20 from an atm: Free if scary at night
Milk, Corn Pops, bowl, spoon: $12
Not paying hotel price for breakfast so I get to keep $15 a day extra to put into my pocket: pricess
This is what they serve in airports
Plastic utensils. Because, you know, with a butter knife a terrorist would spread people to death.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone