One day, not long before you awoke after finding yourself in the future, there was a mirror that looked into the past. And in front of that mirror without a proper reflection was the Wabbajack.
I was on a beautiful sunny ocean one day, eating the sweetrolls that had become of my enemies, when suddenly a small rodent ran into a nearby watercloset. I chased after it, hoping for dessert, only to find a waistcoated banker. This man looked familiar, as I had once mistaken him for Sheogorath, when he was, in fact, despite the lacking in all physical appearances, Hermaeus Mora.
He said something that didn't make any sense about him actually being a cat, and wondered how I recognized him. But it was clear to me that he looked exactly like an elephant. I have no idea what he was talking about.
Anyway, He demanded that I give back the Wabbajack! Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Never in all my life had I believed the wonders of this magical book of knowledge could manifest into illusions such as these. I begin to wonder, really, if everyone else truly can't see the inter-connective system as I can? Is it true that people cannot see that all things are and aren't the same? Can dementia truly not be the Duke of Mania? If you prick me, do you not bleed?
So obviously I refused. I earned the Wabbajack! It was my brilliance and forthcoming that brought it to my basement on the 5th of First Seed! If not for all the cat hair and the matching bedding, this would all be for naught!
I had to use it. I didn't think it would come to this - that the Daedric prince of knowledge and ceiling wax would become my enemy! But I had to do it. I told him to go away.
You would think in all my politeness he wouldn't have gotten so rude! He turned inside out with rage screaming, "My name is Sheogorath!" I think he must be mad. There's no such thing as a Sheogorath. But I digress... He proceeded to explode. I found the whole situation to be far too uncomfortable, so I hit him with my Wabbajack staff and ran out through the u-bend.
Stumbling over my own ribcage, I fell into a place that seemed to be an arena of some kind. But because I know the interconnective system so well, I understand that all of what I saw was what I was looking for the whole time!
I sat on a nearby pile of light and had a wonderful time dining on the remains of a large feast the former inhabitants seemed to have left for me. So very polite of them, wasn't it, Wabbajack?
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Religion and Medicine
So when my mother read that last post of mine, boy did I hear about it... She's certainly passionate about this subject. In my information gathering I had already learned just about everything she stated in its defense, but she couldn't answer some of my particular critical questions:
1. Why the lack of ingredients labeled?
2. Why the specific duck ingredients if it's the imprinted vibration that's doing the healing?
3. Why have any sugar in the pills at all?
4. Wouldn't a larger dosage of the main ingredient allow for more potent healing? The imprinted vibrations would carry over in greater potency is the dosage were upped, would they not?
With every question I didn't hear a valid explanation to, I instead would hear another story of when homeopathics saved my brother's life from bee stings and fevers...
But if it was truly a sugar pill with an imprinted vibration of the active ingredient that saved him and not his own immune system, I feel as though this is no longer a talk about the pill being the saviour. This is a talk about faith and spiritual healing.
Like any beliefs, I don't want to bunk something that someone else believes in just because I don't think it's true. Maybe the pills' vibrations actually did work.
Maybe it was healing energy from my mom that did the healing rather than the pills.
Maybe my brother's immune system was better than she thought.
Maybe God was watching over him and decided it wasn't his time.
Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster slipped a noodle up his nose and pulled out the venom/virus.
Many things are possible, and I shouldn't be one to judge. I guess I'm not accustomed to the idea of taking a pill for something other than the physical ingredients in the pill, so if it seemed like I was attacking the idea of this medicine working, that wasn't exactly my intention. My intention was to bring into light the things that seemed deceptive.
Personally, I believe that we should all know what is contained within what we buy. I am an advocate that the GMO labeling i-522 bill should have passed, being that it would be a step in the right direction. But just like I believe the deception behind not labeling GMOs is wrong, I also believe that not containing all the ingredients on a pill bottle is wrong. This bottle contains 99.999etc% sugar. And they could at least write "extract of duck liver and heart" in a parenthetical. If the average person today can't even understand how to use a semicolon with English as their primary language, how can we expect them to know that much Latin?
(I'm pretty sure "healing vibrations" wasn't on that ingredients list either.)
Also, these things are being marketed as though it's a pill you take to get better, when in fact it is a method of spiritual healing; not so much a compound of physical ingredients, but rather a product made through a process of vibrations, and taking the pill melds the pill's vibrations with those of your own body. But putting it like that would make them far less money, I'm sure. They could at least sell some that are sugarless. Make them out of stevia or something... Don't they know their target audience?
1. Why the lack of ingredients labeled?
2. Why the specific duck ingredients if it's the imprinted vibration that's doing the healing?
3. Why have any sugar in the pills at all?
4. Wouldn't a larger dosage of the main ingredient allow for more potent healing? The imprinted vibrations would carry over in greater potency is the dosage were upped, would they not?
With every question I didn't hear a valid explanation to, I instead would hear another story of when homeopathics saved my brother's life from bee stings and fevers...
But if it was truly a sugar pill with an imprinted vibration of the active ingredient that saved him and not his own immune system, I feel as though this is no longer a talk about the pill being the saviour. This is a talk about faith and spiritual healing.
Like any beliefs, I don't want to bunk something that someone else believes in just because I don't think it's true. Maybe the pills' vibrations actually did work.
Maybe it was healing energy from my mom that did the healing rather than the pills.
Maybe my brother's immune system was better than she thought.
Maybe God was watching over him and decided it wasn't his time.
Maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster slipped a noodle up his nose and pulled out the venom/virus.
Many things are possible, and I shouldn't be one to judge. I guess I'm not accustomed to the idea of taking a pill for something other than the physical ingredients in the pill, so if it seemed like I was attacking the idea of this medicine working, that wasn't exactly my intention. My intention was to bring into light the things that seemed deceptive.
Personally, I believe that we should all know what is contained within what we buy. I am an advocate that the GMO labeling i-522 bill should have passed, being that it would be a step in the right direction. But just like I believe the deception behind not labeling GMOs is wrong, I also believe that not containing all the ingredients on a pill bottle is wrong. This bottle contains 99.999etc% sugar. And they could at least write "extract of duck liver and heart" in a parenthetical. If the average person today can't even understand how to use a semicolon with English as their primary language, how can we expect them to know that much Latin?
(I'm pretty sure "healing vibrations" wasn't on that ingredients list either.)
Also, these things are being marketed as though it's a pill you take to get better, when in fact it is a method of spiritual healing; not so much a compound of physical ingredients, but rather a product made through a process of vibrations, and taking the pill melds the pill's vibrations with those of your own body. But putting it like that would make them far less money, I'm sure. They could at least sell some that are sugarless. Make them out of stevia or something... Don't they know their target audience?
Oscillococcinum
So I took some of my mom's Oscillococcinum this morning to see if it might help calm down my coughing fits (I think I might have fractured a rib). It occurred to me after taking it that, to my memory, all round-white-pill homeopathics I have taken in my life have had the same sweet taste, so I looked at the ingredients. They were in Latin, for some reason:
"Anas barbariae hepatis et cordis extractum 200CK"
With Google Translate, that became:
"Barbary duck liver and heart extract 200CK"
So I had the question at that point... Why would duck liver/heart be the color white, and why the hell would it taste sweet? And what is this 200CK?
Well after a bit of research I found some answers. First of all, 200CK is apparently an indication of dilution. The C stands for Centesimal (a division into hundredths), and the K stands for Korsakov. Not Korsakoff syndrome, but rather the Korsakov method of making homeopathic remedies (Yes, his full name is Semen Nikolaevich Korsakov... Poor guy). Basically, his method was to use the same container for mixing the diluted extracts with water.
So now we know that this Oscillococcinum contains 200 of some division of barbary duck liver and heart extract mixed with water using the same tank for each mixture. I feel like if they just said it like this in plain English it would feel a lot less shady. But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Feeling as though I had more yet to discover, I researched Oscillococcinum itself, and found an interesting fact... Not only are the ingredients on the bottle printed in Latin, seemingly on purpose to prevent their knowledge, but not all of the ingredients are even printed on the bottles. Oscillococcinum contains 1x10-400 (ten to the -400th power) grams Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum as the "Active Ingredient," and the "Inactive Ingredients" are 0.85 grams sucrose and 0.15 grams lactose. So... Yeah, that explains why this duck liver/heart would taste sweet. I wonder if the sugar is organic?
So basically Oscillococcinum pills are made of 100% sugar with maybe a single molecule of what might be a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being duck liver and heart extract instead of water. And no, I did not make that number up. That is 10 to the -400th power - the amount of the active ingredient in this product.
When Professor Hubert Farnsworth from Futurama replied to Amy Wong's suggestion of homeopathic medicine with the retort: "Or a big fat placebo! It's all the same crap!" I gave it a laugh and gave the medicine the benefit of the doubt... But finally looking at the science behind much of this stuff, I'm afraid I don't see any possible conclusion other than, yes, these are sugar pills... I certainly welcome somebody to prove me wrong, but I'm going to need some good explanations about how a duck's liver and heart could heal my ailments in the first place. Apart from curing my hunger, of course.
"Anas barbariae hepatis et cordis extractum 200CK"
With Google Translate, that became:
"Barbary duck liver and heart extract 200CK"
So I had the question at that point... Why would duck liver/heart be the color white, and why the hell would it taste sweet? And what is this 200CK?
Well after a bit of research I found some answers. First of all, 200CK is apparently an indication of dilution. The C stands for Centesimal (a division into hundredths), and the K stands for Korsakov. Not Korsakoff syndrome, but rather the Korsakov method of making homeopathic remedies (Yes, his full name is Semen Nikolaevich Korsakov... Poor guy). Basically, his method was to use the same container for mixing the diluted extracts with water.
So now we know that this Oscillococcinum contains 200 of some division of barbary duck liver and heart extract mixed with water using the same tank for each mixture. I feel like if they just said it like this in plain English it would feel a lot less shady. But I'm getting ahead of myself...
Feeling as though I had more yet to discover, I researched Oscillococcinum itself, and found an interesting fact... Not only are the ingredients on the bottle printed in Latin, seemingly on purpose to prevent their knowledge, but not all of the ingredients are even printed on the bottles. Oscillococcinum contains 1x10-400 (ten to the -400th power) grams Anas Barbariae Hepatis et Cordis Extractum as the "Active Ingredient," and the "Inactive Ingredients" are 0.85 grams sucrose and 0.15 grams lactose. So... Yeah, that explains why this duck liver/heart would taste sweet. I wonder if the sugar is organic?
So basically Oscillococcinum pills are made of 100% sugar with maybe a single molecule of what might be a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance of being duck liver and heart extract instead of water. And no, I did not make that number up. That is 10 to the -400th power - the amount of the active ingredient in this product.
When Professor Hubert Farnsworth from Futurama replied to Amy Wong's suggestion of homeopathic medicine with the retort: "Or a big fat placebo! It's all the same crap!" I gave it a laugh and gave the medicine the benefit of the doubt... But finally looking at the science behind much of this stuff, I'm afraid I don't see any possible conclusion other than, yes, these are sugar pills... I certainly welcome somebody to prove me wrong, but I'm going to need some good explanations about how a duck's liver and heart could heal my ailments in the first place. Apart from curing my hunger, of course.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Violence in Video Games
For many years now there have been arguments that video game violence desensitizes people from real life violence. Some studies even say that video games cause people to become violent themselves. Video games do not make people violent, nor do they cause people to believe that violence has no repercussions; video games merely show that poor sportsmanship, impatience, and a violent disposition can lead to violence.
Many studies seem to assume that violence in video games allows people to be violent without any repercussions. This is not true, because in order to add challenge (and fun) to any video game, it is necessary to have opposition – a way to lose. If a person attacks someone in real life, they are likely to be attacked right back. Video games work in the same way – you attack someone, they attack you right back. There are circumstances in real life where one may be, for some reason, unable to counter the opposition, and video games share those same conditional circumstances. But no matter what the circumstance, there is always a repercussion in some form or another, video game or no, for acts of violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series violent acts are treated in much the same way as in real life, resulting in the player being wanted by the police/military, and oftentimes the player gets killed trying to evade them. In the game Battlefield: 1942 the player is given arms and told to go out and fight in World War II. And not unlike the real war, the player is at constant risk of stepping on a landmine, being sniped, being bombed by a plane, etc. These games aren't showing the players that war and violence is okay, they're showing them just how devastating war and violence can really be.
When extremely involved in, or passionate about something, it is easy for people to overreact. When playing video games in competition with another player, or sometimes even against the computer, a player can become frustrated from a losing streak. This highly depends on the individual person, but sometimes players can become so frustrated at their losing streak that they throw the controller, or even hit the friend who was constantly beating them. That is not an example of the video game causing them to be violent; it is an example of poor sportsmanship and self control. Being that video games are a form of media created by people, they also act as a kind of self-expression for the developers, representing their thoughts and ideas. If one is arguing with somebody else and begins to feel frustrated by his or her ideas, one must hold back feelings of aggression, just as one must hold back feelings of aggression when playing a video game. Video games are designed for recreation and entertainment; if the game isn't fun anymore, one can simply stop playing it. Sports fans who are really passionate about the team they root for might react in a similar way when they see their team make a stupid move during the game. The ability to lose, admit defeat, and shake the hands of the opposing team is something supposedly taught at a young age. Unfortunately some people never grasped the concept of losing with dignity during their youth and instead of congratulating the opposing team they get angry and make accusations. Video games are not the only devices that cause frustrated losing reactions; this behaviour is found all over the place, and video games are merely a convenient medium to pin the blame on due to their popularity among the younger generation (Ferguson 1).
The argument has been made that young children shouldn’t play violent video games because it could desensitize them to violence. Depending on the age and development of the child, this could very well be true, but this is also why video games are given a rating, just like movies and television shows. Many young children are impressionable, and game developers know that, so they rate their games for certain age groups. But even within the age groups of the rating, the parents themselves must decide whether their child should play it or not. If parents find that their child is outside stomping on turtles like the Super Mario Brothers, that isn’t the fault of the game, since he clearly wasn't ready, it’s the fault of the parents for letting their child play the game and not teaching the child beforehand that stomping on turtles is wrong. The same argument can be made for the television shows children watch. Just as parents would watch an episode of a television show and judge for themselves if their child should watch it or not, parents should also play a level or two of a video game so they can accurately judge if their child should play it or not. Children are impressionable in their early developmental years, and therefore parents should be the judges of whether their child is ready or not for various media stimuli.
When making the argument that violent games cause violence, people seem to ignore the possibility that the violence could have happened despite the video game. Dr. Patrick Markey stated in an article of The Escapist, “Individuals are not ‘blank slates.’ One’s general disposition moderates the effect of violent media” (Chalk). If a man played the game Modern Warfare and then went out and shot someone, that doesn’t mean that the game made him do it. Taking an example of a single individual who actually shot someone and correlating his shooting with the video game he plays is inaccurate because it does not account for the thousands of other people who have played that game and gotten no urge to go on a real life killing spree. If this guy can actually go out and shoot someone just like that, maybe we should consider the possibility that he is mentally ill, or that he has a history of violence. If violence in video games were making people physically violent, imagine how many people would be currently under attack by the approximated 9 million currently active World of Warcraft players (Holisky). People play video games that they personally enjoy, so telling a number of people to sit down and play games that they do not enjoy can cause them irritation in itself, thereby contaminating the results of the test. The humanity element is a difficult thing to measure and cannot accurately be portrayed in a laboratory; when testing for a correlation between violent gaming and and real life violence, the mental characteristics of the gamers should be taken into account.
Some people might question why violent video games are made in the first place and why people play them. People who play violent video games often play them as a way of relieving stress. Let's say a man by the name of Greg had a bad day at work; his boss gave him a hard time. He might have thoughts about punching his boss, or even throwing his boss out the window. These mental images are normal; it's acting on them that makes them bad. So Greg comes home and attacks a punching bag for an hour to relieve his stress. You see how Greg can relieve his stress through acts of violence against an object designed for receiving acts of violence? What if Greg came home and played Street Fighter on his gaming console? He takes control of a virtual avatar and beats on another virtual avatar, thereby taking out his anger on a virtual character designed to be attacked. Video games allow people like Greg in the modern age to have a sense of control during hard times, and many games offer virtual realities where people can create lives for themselves that could never be achieved in reality (CACM Staff 10). Video games allow people to experience their “happy place” in a fully immersive environment and help people to cope with the hardships and stress of their daily lives.
The reactions people have to the video game world vary highly depending on the person, and society has been known to shun every technological step leading into a new era. Radio was looked down upon when it became popular, television was looked down upon as its popularity grew, and now video games and virtual reality are being used as a scapegoat in much the same way. Video games may be addicting, they may bring out bad sportsmanship in some people, and for developmental reasons it may be a bad idea to let your 6-year-old play Mortal Kombat, but because there are so many gamers out there who aren’t attacking people, it is inaccurate to say that video games are causing violence.
Many studies seem to assume that violence in video games allows people to be violent without any repercussions. This is not true, because in order to add challenge (and fun) to any video game, it is necessary to have opposition – a way to lose. If a person attacks someone in real life, they are likely to be attacked right back. Video games work in the same way – you attack someone, they attack you right back. There are circumstances in real life where one may be, for some reason, unable to counter the opposition, and video games share those same conditional circumstances. But no matter what the circumstance, there is always a repercussion in some form or another, video game or no, for acts of violence. In the Grand Theft Auto series violent acts are treated in much the same way as in real life, resulting in the player being wanted by the police/military, and oftentimes the player gets killed trying to evade them. In the game Battlefield: 1942 the player is given arms and told to go out and fight in World War II. And not unlike the real war, the player is at constant risk of stepping on a landmine, being sniped, being bombed by a plane, etc. These games aren't showing the players that war and violence is okay, they're showing them just how devastating war and violence can really be.
When extremely involved in, or passionate about something, it is easy for people to overreact. When playing video games in competition with another player, or sometimes even against the computer, a player can become frustrated from a losing streak. This highly depends on the individual person, but sometimes players can become so frustrated at their losing streak that they throw the controller, or even hit the friend who was constantly beating them. That is not an example of the video game causing them to be violent; it is an example of poor sportsmanship and self control. Being that video games are a form of media created by people, they also act as a kind of self-expression for the developers, representing their thoughts and ideas. If one is arguing with somebody else and begins to feel frustrated by his or her ideas, one must hold back feelings of aggression, just as one must hold back feelings of aggression when playing a video game. Video games are designed for recreation and entertainment; if the game isn't fun anymore, one can simply stop playing it. Sports fans who are really passionate about the team they root for might react in a similar way when they see their team make a stupid move during the game. The ability to lose, admit defeat, and shake the hands of the opposing team is something supposedly taught at a young age. Unfortunately some people never grasped the concept of losing with dignity during their youth and instead of congratulating the opposing team they get angry and make accusations. Video games are not the only devices that cause frustrated losing reactions; this behaviour is found all over the place, and video games are merely a convenient medium to pin the blame on due to their popularity among the younger generation (Ferguson 1).
The argument has been made that young children shouldn’t play violent video games because it could desensitize them to violence. Depending on the age and development of the child, this could very well be true, but this is also why video games are given a rating, just like movies and television shows. Many young children are impressionable, and game developers know that, so they rate their games for certain age groups. But even within the age groups of the rating, the parents themselves must decide whether their child should play it or not. If parents find that their child is outside stomping on turtles like the Super Mario Brothers, that isn’t the fault of the game, since he clearly wasn't ready, it’s the fault of the parents for letting their child play the game and not teaching the child beforehand that stomping on turtles is wrong. The same argument can be made for the television shows children watch. Just as parents would watch an episode of a television show and judge for themselves if their child should watch it or not, parents should also play a level or two of a video game so they can accurately judge if their child should play it or not. Children are impressionable in their early developmental years, and therefore parents should be the judges of whether their child is ready or not for various media stimuli.
When making the argument that violent games cause violence, people seem to ignore the possibility that the violence could have happened despite the video game. Dr. Patrick Markey stated in an article of The Escapist, “Individuals are not ‘blank slates.’ One’s general disposition moderates the effect of violent media” (Chalk). If a man played the game Modern Warfare and then went out and shot someone, that doesn’t mean that the game made him do it. Taking an example of a single individual who actually shot someone and correlating his shooting with the video game he plays is inaccurate because it does not account for the thousands of other people who have played that game and gotten no urge to go on a real life killing spree. If this guy can actually go out and shoot someone just like that, maybe we should consider the possibility that he is mentally ill, or that he has a history of violence. If violence in video games were making people physically violent, imagine how many people would be currently under attack by the approximated 9 million currently active World of Warcraft players (Holisky). People play video games that they personally enjoy, so telling a number of people to sit down and play games that they do not enjoy can cause them irritation in itself, thereby contaminating the results of the test. The humanity element is a difficult thing to measure and cannot accurately be portrayed in a laboratory; when testing for a correlation between violent gaming and and real life violence, the mental characteristics of the gamers should be taken into account.
Some people might question why violent video games are made in the first place and why people play them. People who play violent video games often play them as a way of relieving stress. Let's say a man by the name of Greg had a bad day at work; his boss gave him a hard time. He might have thoughts about punching his boss, or even throwing his boss out the window. These mental images are normal; it's acting on them that makes them bad. So Greg comes home and attacks a punching bag for an hour to relieve his stress. You see how Greg can relieve his stress through acts of violence against an object designed for receiving acts of violence? What if Greg came home and played Street Fighter on his gaming console? He takes control of a virtual avatar and beats on another virtual avatar, thereby taking out his anger on a virtual character designed to be attacked. Video games allow people like Greg in the modern age to have a sense of control during hard times, and many games offer virtual realities where people can create lives for themselves that could never be achieved in reality (CACM Staff 10). Video games allow people to experience their “happy place” in a fully immersive environment and help people to cope with the hardships and stress of their daily lives.
The reactions people have to the video game world vary highly depending on the person, and society has been known to shun every technological step leading into a new era. Radio was looked down upon when it became popular, television was looked down upon as its popularity grew, and now video games and virtual reality are being used as a scapegoat in much the same way. Video games may be addicting, they may bring out bad sportsmanship in some people, and for developmental reasons it may be a bad idea to let your 6-year-old play Mortal Kombat, but because there are so many gamers out there who aren’t attacking people, it is inaccurate to say that video games are causing violence.
CACM Staff. “War is No Game.” Communications of the ACM Mar. 2005: 10-10. Abstract. Print.
Chalk, Andy. “New Study: Most Teenagers are Unaffected by Violent Gaming.” Escapist 7 June 2010: n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/101160-New-Study-Most-Teenagers-are-Unaffected-by-Violent-Gaming>.
Ferguson, Christopher J. “The School Shooting/Violent Video Game Link: Causal Relationship or Moral Panic?” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling (2008): 1-14. Abstract. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://168.156.198.98:2059/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b42ecbc6-5561-40b3-a578-ec064e402798%40sessionmgr14&vid=4&hid=111>.
Giumetti, Gary W., and Patrick M. Markey. “New Study Examines Anger, Aggression, Videogame Violence.” Journal of Research in Personality (2007): 1-10. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://www65.homepage.villanova.edu/patrick.markey/vg.pdf>.
Holisky, Adam. “World of Warcraft subscriber numbers dip 100,000 to 10.2 million.” WoW Insider 9 Feb. 2012: n. pag. Web. 20 Mar. 2012. <http://wow.joystiq.com/2012/02/09/world-of-warcraft-subscriber-numbers/>.Thursday, November 7, 2013
Buyer Beware! - HDMI Cables
If you find yourself shopping for HDMI cables, as long as it says "high speed" on the package, it is the same as any other 1080p capable HDMI cable.
Retailers are ripping people off by putting "3D capable" on the package and overcharging, when in fact all high speed HDMI cables are capable of 3D. I think some HDMI cables may be special due to supplying an ethernet connection, but the "HDMI v1.4" thing is actually misleading. HDMI v1.4 is referring to the version of the port, not the cable. The cables didn't change versions because they didn't need to - they are still capable of transferring massive amounts of video data. The port, however, needed to change the kind of video data that needed to be transferred through the cable.
Now this is not to say that some of the more expensive HDMI cables aren't superior. Some have gold plating, some are built out of cheaper or better materials, but ultimately they all do the same thing. They transfer video/audio data.
Retailers are ripping people off by putting "3D capable" on the package and overcharging, when in fact all high speed HDMI cables are capable of 3D. I think some HDMI cables may be special due to supplying an ethernet connection, but the "HDMI v1.4" thing is actually misleading. HDMI v1.4 is referring to the version of the port, not the cable. The cables didn't change versions because they didn't need to - they are still capable of transferring massive amounts of video data. The port, however, needed to change the kind of video data that needed to be transferred through the cable.
Now this is not to say that some of the more expensive HDMI cables aren't superior. Some have gold plating, some are built out of cheaper or better materials, but ultimately they all do the same thing. They transfer video/audio data.
Sources:
...and other misc Google searches.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Haters Gonna Hate
So it has come to my attention that Orson Scott Card, the author of the fantastic novel Ender's Game, is very much a closed-minded douchebag when it comes to respecting other people's equality with opinions and beliefs. It has also come to my attention that some are attempting to rally people together to boycott the new Ender's Game movie because of this.
"I don’t want a single penny of my money going to a vicious bigot like Card, even if the movie doesn't touch in any way on his homophobic views" they say.
(Example Link)
Now let me tell you why I think boycotting this movie is wrong.
I think boycotting Card's work is wrong because it follows this line of logic:
"His opinions are different from mine, so he should be punished."
Card is of the opinion that homosexuality should be illegal, one shouldn't be elected president if their religion disagrees with his, etc, etc... I don't need to read the rest.
Now here's his logic:
"Their opinions are different from mine, so they should be punished."
See some parallels happening here?
By boycotting the movie to get back at Card, you're actually boycotting many innocent people in the process! Why attack hundreds of people just because you hate one man? He's entitled to his opinion, just as we are. If you want to defend against his attacks on our opinions, that's fine. But do it in a way that's actually relevant.
He's an activist against gay rights. If you don't like that, then become an activist for gay rights and call out his bullshit! Don't pretend you're actually making a difference by boycotting a movie that other people are making just to prevent his making profit from it.
Orson Scott Card came up with a great series of novels based on ideas and creativity. Those novels are not attacking other people's opinions, nor will the movie based upon them attack other people's opinions. This man, no matter how backward his opinions and beliefs, has just as much a right to make money off of his creations as anyone else. And even though I seriously disagree with much of what he stands for, I commend his works of fiction, which clearly show that despite his archaic ignorance, he is capable of hard work, creativity, and brilliance.
I will see the Ender's Game movie, and I will love it. All of that being said, if there is a Hell, Orson Scott Card will likely end up there for being an intolerant religiously-blinded homophobic idiot.
Update after seeing the movie:
I saw the movie. It turned out to be rubbish... I am very disappointed...
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Wabbajack
Little boys shouldn't summon up the forces of eternal darkness, unless they have adult supervision, I know, I know. But on that sunny night on the 5th of First Seed, I didn't want an adult. I wanted Hermaeus Mora, the Daedra of knowledge, learning, gums, and varnishes. You see, I was told by a beautiful large-breasted man who lived under the library in my home town that the 5th of First Seed was Hermaeus Mora's night. And if I wanted the Oghma Infinium, the book of knowledge, I had to summon him.
Normally you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least a matching pillow case and sheet to invoke a prince of Oblivion. The Man Under the Library showed me how to do it myself. He told me to wait until the storm was at its height before shaving the cat. I've forgotten the rest of the ceremony. It doesn't matter.
Someone appeared who I thought was Hermaeus Mora. The only thing that made me somewhat suspicious was Hermaeus Mora, from what I read, was a big blobby multi-eyed clawed monstrosity, and this guy looked like a waistcoated banker. Also, he kept calling himself Sheogorath, not Hermaeus Mora. Still, I was so happy to have successfully summoned Hermaeus Mora, these inconsistencies did not bother me. He had me do some things that didn't make any sense (beyond the mortal scope, breadth, and ken I suppose), and then his servant happily gave me something he called the Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Maybe the Wabbajack is the book of knowledge. Maybe I'm smarter because I know cats can be bats can be rats can be hats can be gnats can be thats can be thises. And that doors can be boars can be snores can be floors can be roars can be spores can be yours can be mine. I must be smart, for the interconnective system is very clear to me. Then why, or wherefore do people keep calling me mad?
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Normally you need a witches coven, or a mages guild, or at least a matching pillow case and sheet to invoke a prince of Oblivion. The Man Under the Library showed me how to do it myself. He told me to wait until the storm was at its height before shaving the cat. I've forgotten the rest of the ceremony. It doesn't matter.
Someone appeared who I thought was Hermaeus Mora. The only thing that made me somewhat suspicious was Hermaeus Mora, from what I read, was a big blobby multi-eyed clawed monstrosity, and this guy looked like a waistcoated banker. Also, he kept calling himself Sheogorath, not Hermaeus Mora. Still, I was so happy to have successfully summoned Hermaeus Mora, these inconsistencies did not bother me. He had me do some things that didn't make any sense (beyond the mortal scope, breadth, and ken I suppose), and then his servant happily gave me something he called the Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Maybe the Wabbajack is the book of knowledge. Maybe I'm smarter because I know cats can be bats can be rats can be hats can be gnats can be thats can be thises. And that doors can be boars can be snores can be floors can be roars can be spores can be yours can be mine. I must be smart, for the interconnective system is very clear to me. Then why, or wherefore do people keep calling me mad?
Wabbajack. Wabbajack.
Wabbajack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)