Sentenced to Earth

Socialism

2006-03-08T11:55:00.000-08:00

What socialism means to Keti:

1. Force
2. Greed
3. Hypocrisy
4. Failure
5. Unfair
6. Majority rule sans minority rights
7. Defeat of the true purpose of government
8. Not freedom

1. Socialism is force.
I see socialists as a wierd group that do things I don't agree with, but I respect them nonetheless. The same applies to gays. They're a wierd group that do things I don't agree with but I respect them nonetheless. They have a right to act however they want, provided they're not harming anyone else (especially me).

Socialism in practice is analagous to laws forcing everyone to participate in homosexual activity twice a week, and imprisoning those that don't. Obviously, I wouldn't put up with that. (I don't think even gays want a law like that passed, but I haven't found any to ask.) Socialism is like that because it's not an individual philosophy. It's a force-the-compliance-of-everyone-in-the-country type of thing, economic totalitarianism, a dictatorship of money, slavery in service of the state. This type of shit has to be FORCED upon people, otherwise it will not work. All it takes is a few people to resist the system and it fails.

2. Socialism is greed.
Socialists are often the people that would benefit most from socialism. By this, I mean poor people. The poor are especially unqualified to tell everyone else what to do, they're society's failures. Don't misinterpret this to mean they shouldn't vote. They should, but that doesn't change the fact that they're unqualified to lead in these matters.

The other group that benefits from socialism is those that seek power. Socialism leads to power of government over the people, and politicians seek to be major players in the increased power they promise to instate (which they promise not because they know it's right, but because it gets them votes).

The socialis poor are selfish self-victimizers that want to take rather than earn. The socialist rich see socialism as a means to power. Both of which are selfish purposes. Which brings me to my next point.

3. Socialism is hypocrisy
Socialists call the rich greedy, selfish, capitalist pigs. Ironic and hypocritical, because they're secretly greedy themselves, but as long as they can shift the blame of being greedy to the rich to take attention off themselves, they feel better about themselves. Doesn't make sense? It's not supposed to. It just has to feel right.

They also have a tendency to equate the money of the rich to power. Not like that's obvious or anything...but it is hypocritical that they complain about it, because the system they advocate and vote for is one that not only gives people power, but gives them power and then tells them to make themselves more powerful (socialism = bigger government = more power). How they expect this to relieve the problem of elitism and class distictions, I'm not sure of myself, it would seem that it would just change it from a poor and rich class to a poor voter class and a rich elected class.

Socialism would also make the government the single largest corporation in country's service industry. A monopoly that taxes whatever amount it desires and provides product as poor as it desires. It does not need to provide good service with minimal resource use, as the free market would demand. It doesn't even have to work for it's money. The money just pours in through taxes. As a result, the government becomes the most monopolistic, greedy, power-whoring, inefficient, and wasteful entity in the country. All the government has to do is terrorize those that don't pay their "protection money."

4. Socialism is a failure
Socialists don't understand the capitalist system. This should be obvious. They're poor. Of course they don't get it. If they did, they wouldn't be poor. So what do they do? Well, instead of trying to figure out the capitalist system, they say "This system is broken," and offer a solution that benefits them. This solution they propose is socialism. They can't get that, so they whittle away at capitalism. They propose things like welfare, minimum wage, unions, etc.

Welfare: How to put single minority moms with 5 kids permanantly on the government teat, keeping the poor in poverty and letting them teach their kids the ways of poverty, so that they may grow up to be welfare-dependant and living in eternal poverty themselves. "Don't work," the government says, "we'll give you money." Of course, the socialists would go crazy if the POOR had to actually pay for the systems that they benefit from. It's only fair that the rich pay higher tax, so that the evil rich are paying for it, right? Even though they don't benefit from the system.

Minimum wage: "Let's help the poor by making other people give them more money. Let's ignore the fact that with the rising costs of labor, the costs of everything that they would be buying would increase as well...we can assume the Chairmen, CEOs, Presidents, and the rest of the capitalist pigs will simply absorb the costs. Things increase in price more than the increase in pay? NONSENSE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. Companies are firing people because the employees are too expensive and making fewer people do more work? BULLSHIT. THEY'RE LYING."

Unions: "If we get all the workers to make the company do something or they won't work, we'll help them! Let's ignore the fact that it's driving the companies out of business and making all their stuff more expensive. Ford and GM aren't leaving the US because of the unions...the unions are good. Toyota is evil for not having unions and we have no idea why they're staying profitable in this great welfare state of ours."

5. Socialism is unfair.
Socialists of the poor variety claim to be poor because the rich are taking all the money. Gimme a break. Americans are huge spenders. The average American spends 100% of their paycheck and then some. The poor aren't having their money being taken away by the rich, they are in fact all too eager to give it to them, and they give it ALL to the rich that own the power companies, car companies, telecom companies, banks, etc. They spend themselves into poverty and then beg for welfare. They give the rich their money and then complain that the rich have all the money and they don't have any and how unfair it is, and demand to be given their money back, but not if they have to return the stuff that they bought from the rich to get it back. Sounds like a ripoff? Stinks like one too.

6. Socialism is majority rule sans minority rights.
And who cares how fair this stuff is to the rich? There are more happy poor people than angry rich people and that's all that matters, right? As long as more people are happy than angry, you've done the right thing. The rich shouldn't have any say in matters because they're not the majority. "Fuck the minority, it's all their fault anyways." Sound familiar? "Kill the Jews, they're the cause of our problems!" -Nazis. "Screw the rich, they're the cause of our problems!" -Socialists.

Did I mention that Nazis were a socialist party? Yep. Socialists generally don't even consider that socialist, because it wasn't very utopia-ish like they think it should be.

7. Socialism is the defeat of the true purpose of government
What is this purpose, and how is it violated? Let's look at an anarchy, the utter lack of government, to determine what it's true purpose is, and how and why order arises out of chaos.

In anarchy, there is no government, laws are enforced only by the victims of crime, and it's every man for himself. If you don't have self-defense, you have nothing. Now, a group of friends decide "I'll watch your back, you watch mine." They defend each other. Others join this group seeking the protection from thieving freeloaders, willing to protect others to have others protect them. They organize and formalize what things they should protect each other against. This is the basis of government. Government, in it's purest, most basic form, is the organization of the individual right to self-defense. It is mutually beneficial to everybody within the society that lives by the government.

How would a socialist society say it happened in order to justify a claim that the purpose of government is the redistribution of wealth to those who need it?

In an anarchy, the rich are those that could defend themselves against thieves that sought to live at the expense of others. Only then could they possibly aquire and collect enough resources to be considered rich. The unfairness of the ability of the rich to defend their property led to criminals organizing an attack against the rich. After disabling the rich man, they would proceed to forcibly deprive him of his belongings. As they agreed before attacking the rich man, they distributed his belongings among them all. And this would be the basis for government based on redistribution of wealth.

At least that's the only way I can see a government whose original purpose was redistribution of wealth, a government born socialist, rising out of anarchy. This would undoubtedly be a government run by the most powerful of thieves, who would collectively target the most rich, who would yield the highest profits. All those partaking in this government would be thieves seeking to live freely off the work performed by others, just as the first of the thieves did.

A government that is born capitalist and becomes socialist has truly lost sight of it's original purpose, and has been converted from protector of all for the benefit of the honest, to thiever of the honest for the benefit of the thieves.

It's absolutely absurd to think that is a good purpose for government.

8. Socialism is not freedom.
A socialist system would see astronomical taxes to pay for the welfare, healthcare, expanded government and all it's beuraucracy and regulation. Should we not be free to benefit from our work in ways that we choose, rather than be forced to spend our money on what the government mandates? Of course not. If people were allowed to spend money the way they wanted, the money would never go where it needs to go (read as "where they want it to go").

Another note:
All socialists I have met agree: Guns are bad.

Why? See number 1: Socialism is force. People that don't like socialism would fight the system. "We can't have people resisting the system!" Panic sets in on the socialist mind. "They need to submit! We can't allow them the means to effectively resist the system! That would destroy it! We must take the guns, so they cannot resist and all resistance will be futile. We also can't have people being independant of the government. We need them all to be dependant upon the government for their welfare and security. If they can hunt, they won't need to use money (which we'll tax) to get their food, and they won't have to rely on the police for their security if they can deal with threats on their own! They cannot be allowed to be so independant! So long as they are dependant, they will not resist the system. They will like the government."

It's also hypocritical. I mean, socialism is a utopian state, right? "There'd be like, no crime because nobody would be poor, and nobody would be so desperate as to need a weapon in a crime, right? And people will be so happy and caring and compassionate under a socialist system that they'll just give the desperate people that won't even exist anything they need!"

So you can allow guns, right? Since there won't be any crime?

"FUCK NO."

Is a gun control stance their way of admitting defeat in their utopian ideal of socialism? Gun control wouldn't be needed if the world were perfect, but they insist that guns should be banned outright anyways.

Now, any socialists reading this might be all "WTF THIS ISNT SOCIALISM THIS IS WELFARE-STATISM."

Yeah.

Duh.

How are you going to get to socialism without going through a welfare-state period first? You can't do it all at once.

At least not without those eeevil guns that you want to ban.

Socialism is already failing us at the welfare-state point and it's just getting worse as we progress further into it.

Capitalism made America strong. It can make us strong again. And your utopian pipe dreams won't do anything to help us.

Besides, socialism is communism in disguise. And as we all saw with the Soviet Union, communism doesn't work. There's no specific line where socialism becomes communism. Your socialist system is communism with a different name and with money still around.

Fuck socialism. And don't you dare try to ruin the best country on the planet (the US) because your poor ass wants socialism. You want socialism, move to a socialist country. Don't fuck up my capitalism and I won't fuck up your socialism. Live and let live? Just take your bullshit commie utopia somewhere else, where the party that disagrees with you ISN'T the one that has all those high-powered semiautomatic high-capacity evil black rifles with all the expensive shit hanging off a mounting rail. Because you probably don't want to piss off that party.

Gun control advocates are idiots.

2006-02-26T17:29:00.000-08:00

Notes:

Most of the anti-gunners are liberal touchy-feely types that know little about them and are irrationally quick to blame problems on guns. Most have demonstrated that they believe themselves to be victims. These people do not think, they feel. They use vivid if inappropriate images to make their view more appealing to themselves (such as "the Old West" to describe universal concealed-carry, even though everything they know about "the Old West" came from TV).

I have never been able to complete an arguement in favor of deregulation of guns. This is because my opponents stop responding. Too ignorant to win, to arrogant to concede, their only choice is to make it look like a draw. On the internet, anyways. In reality, they simply shout at me to shut up, I'm wrong, and they're right so ha.

What a curse it is to be able to see what idiocy you are surrounded by and not be able to do anything about it...

Let's begin.

I declare a stance in opposition to gun control. ANY gun control. Everyone has the fundamental right to self-defense and the right to any tools which they might use to that end, the most effective such tool being guns in any form.

Now, there are a number of Anti-gun people witnessing my claim. They go crazy. In the interest of protecting them from looking stupid, I anonymize them all to "ANTI." Also because many of these are not direct quotes, but with corrected grammar, spelling, and rephrased in a way that does not change the meaning of the sentence but makes it easier to read out of context of previous debate.

Now here's some of the responses I got:

ANTI: "There are reasons that there are restrictions on guns, see, they kill people. And those who have them are able to kill people, and the bigger the gun, the more people it can kill. So it is best to keep tabs on potential threats."
Keti: "Guns don't kill people. My stepdad has a rifle in his closet and it hasn't killed anyone yet or even loaded itself. You don't need a gun to kill people, but it's definately useful if someone is trying to kill you. Bigger guns aren't used to kill more people, they're used in anti-material roles. Guns are not threats, criminals are. Ban the criminals, not the guns."

ANTI: "A gun is a weapon, it is designed to kill. There is no other purpose for it, guns are instruments to kill people and other living organisms."
Keti: "Guns function well as weapons, but are not inherently weapons. Their purpose is essentially to throw a rock at something. If that something is a person, it's a weapon. If that something is a paper target, it's not as much a weapon. Baseball bats are not weapons, their purpose is to send a ball flying, but that doesn't mean some people don't use them as weapons."

ANTI: "How will the public be affected by allowing military-grade weaponry to be bought from a gun store? Wow, that's right, not only will the law-abiding people be able to get more fire power, so would the criminals!"
Keti: "The criminals already have access to those weapons. If they want a full-auto AK-47 it's a simple matter of getting an AK across the border in any of the ways to do that, or applying a shoestring or filing the firing pin down on an existing AK. That's all it takes. That's assuming they don't intend to bump-fire it (a method of getting full-auto firing rate out of a semiautomatic gun without modifying the weapon) instead. But the law-abiding people still can't do it. The criminals don't use full-auto weaponry often not because they can't, but because full-auto fire is inaccurate, draws unwanted attention, is difficult to control, and the gun difficult to conceal, and because they fear the extra penalties for committing a crime with such a weapon. Keep the extra penalties, throw out the ban, and you get the exact same thing. And criminals would rather stay at home when their intended victims would shoot back. It doesn't matter if the criminals have more firepower, as long as everyone else has more as well. A gun ban creates a situation where the criminals are MORE heavily armed than everyone else."

ANTI: "You know why powerful weaponry such as the ones you want to buy are hard to acquire? Ever hear of Bonnie and Clyde? Yeah, look them up."
Keti: "They were the two brats in the class that wouldn't shut up and sit down when the teacher said to, that made the entire class write "I will not yell at my teacher" 200 times. Why should I be punished for their stupidity? If I kill someone with a knife, should they prevent you from having a knife? Hell no.

ANTI: "Such free use of guns would explain why the US has the highest crime rate in the first world."
Keti: "Guns don't cause crime anymore than computers cause fraud. They are just a tool occasionally used in crime."

ANTI: "Have you looked at the crime rates state by state? For example, Texas has one of the most lax gun laws but it has one of the highest crime rates in the nation. We even have the right to carry. There doesn't appear to be a correlation between ownership of guns and low crime rates. Look at this chart:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/MAPS/incrimUS.htm"
Keti: "Have you heard of Kennesaw, Georgia? There's a law on the books in that town that the head of a household must own at least one gun. Immediately after the law was passed, crime dropped 74% the very first year. The year after that it dropped a further 45%, and it stayed that low. There have only been 3 murders since the law was enacted, and two of them were committed with a knife.
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html

ANTI: "Did you know you're more likely to be robbed in Dallas than New York city?" note: stats were not provided.
Keti: "Did you know that in Dallas, where you're allowed to concealed-carry, you can just get your own gun and if anyone threatens you, chances are merely showing credible evidence of extreme pain to them will send them away without a shot being fired? Can people do that in New York? You have rights, use 'em or lose 'em."

ANTI: "The original purpose of the right to bear arms was so that the people could revolutionize a tyrannical government, wasn't it? This doesn't apply anymore, the government has tanks, planes, and nukes."
Keti: "Just knowing that a small number of precision rifles exist in the country is enough to scare most politicians into not abusing their power too much, lest someone attemt to kill them. It's not just about warfare, it's about preventing it. Also, while the government has tanks, planes, and nukes, they can't just use them against a revolutionist militia integrated and diffused throughout the population, they can't just target an idea. Those things are useful against enemy targets, but when the government can't tell who is an enemy, what can they do? Especially when revolutionist sympathizers exist within the military that is supposedly targeting it?"

ANTI: "Suicide in houses with a gun is 5 times higher than in other houses and three times as many husbands killing their wifes in houses with guns than without. Ban gun and those stats drops (the numbers are from my local police office)."
Keti: "People that hate guns are typically cowards. They think they are victims, and they live their life being victims, denying themselves the ability to not be a victim, and hate those that are not victims. Other people that aren't cowards are the ones that have guns. A coward can't commit suicide; they aren't brave enough to pull the trigger or take the pills or jump off the bridge/building/cliff. More suicides occur in gunowners' homes not because the guns assist but because the gunowners are the ones that have the courage to take their own life when they deem it no longer worth living. And husbands killing wives could be avoided if the husbands knew the wives were just as capable of inflicting severe pain or death upon them as they are. The very knowledge that the victim can fight back is generally sufficient to stop the attack before it even happens. Also, banning guns does not have that effect, not being willing to own guns has that effect. There is an important difference to be made."

ANTI: "You must be kidding. People don't duel each other anymore you know. The first spouse who decides to kill the other have infinite opportunities to do so."
Keti: "In a tactical warfare situation, yes. But no shots will be fired until some sort of climax of tension, and that is generally an arguement where both people are present and aware of the other, not in surprise murders. When both are aware of the other's ability to kill them, it has a civilizing effect on the arguement."

ANTI: "Guns increase paranoia level and people in the States are already afraid of their shadow."
Keti: "Guns do not increase paranoia, but many paranoids get guns. Not everyone that has a gun is a paraniod, however."

ANTI: "Do you seriously think there could be a new revolutionary war? Besides, if people turn crazy and they have guns, it gives people shooting at each other for no reason like people did when Katrina occured."
Keti: "Yes, it is possible. But it won't turn out like the wake of Katrina. In Katrina it was every-man-for-himself. A revolutionary war has sides and enemies."

ANTI: "If gun owners are a minority, a revolutionary war is impossible."
Keti: "Not true. For one, one man with a gun can have ten times the effect of ten men without. Second, the armed need not worry much about the unarmed, the simple knowledge that the one man has a gun would be enough to keep the other ten from contesting what he does in the first place. The armed minority need only comparable numbers, strategy, and ability as those enemies which are armed. An armed minority can most certainly wage a war. Look at the American revolution."

ANTI: "I don't consider the ownership of a gun to be a right in the first place."
Keti: "You have four basic human rights. The right to life, to liberty, and to property are the main three, which you are entitled to and which nobody should be allowed to deprive you of. The fourth is the right to defend the first three, and there's only one reliable effective way to do that in this day and age, and that's to shoot anything that attempts to deprive you of your first three rights. To deprive someone of the means of effectively shooting such things is a denial of a basic human right. So whether you like it or not, there most certainly is a right to own guns."

ANTI: "Banning guns is important because deterrance by punishment doesn't work."
Keti: "How's a face full of 00 buck for punishment? If punishment is not sufficient deterrance, you're not using enough of it."

ANTI: "The best ways to prevent crime are preventative, involving trying to tackle the reasons people committ crimes in the first place, and by making it harder to find the tools to commit the crime."
Keti: "They commit crimes in the first place because they aren't deterred against it enough. The possibility of getting shot is deterrent. And if you make it hard to find the tools to commit the crime, they'll just find a different kind of tool. A criminal that cannot aquire a gun will find a knife. A law-abiding citizen that cannot acquire a gun will be defenseless against the criminal."

Keti: "Doctors kill 50,000 people every year in America. I think I'd be better off with a shotgun and ammunition and money to spare than with a doctor and no gun."
ANTI: "Is that a net figure? Because I think they save a few here and there as well."
Keti: "So do guns."

ANTI: "You believe that anyone who commits a crime has forfeited the right to live. As you said, every time they are killed, you believe it is a good thing. That's not what I believe, and neither of us is going to change each others fundamental beliefs about human life."
Keti: "I don't believe they have forfieted the right to live, I believe that when they commit a crime against me they're going to have consequences to deal with as I protect myself, my family, and my property from them."

ANTI: "I don't believe the number of crimes prevented by people owning a gun is greater than the corresponding number of increased suicides, accidental shootings, and gun crimes committed because it was so easy to get a gun in the first place."
Keti: "About 2 million people a year protect life and limb by just showing a predator that they have a gun. No shots fired, nobody hurt, no crime to report. And it's not about saving people's lives. People die and get shot with or without gun laws. It's about freedom. There is no reason to stop me from having a gun. It will not increase the chances that I will commit suicide, or that I will kill someone not in self-defense. It just makes me more easily victimized."

ANTI: "You owning a gun affects the rest of society, giving them a right to make rules."
Keti: "My owning a gun does NOT affect the rest of society. The affected society consists of those that are offended by guns and by criminals that want me to be an easy victim. In the first case, they should deal with it, not take my gun, I'm not responsible for not offending anyone. Contrary to popular Liberal belief, there is no "right not to be offended." In the latter, I'm satisfied with the effect. Everybody else doesn't care. I accept that I might be told when and where I can fire my gun, as that potentially endangers them. I shoud be able to take it anywhere reguardless. But gun ownership does not affect the rest of society."

ANTI: "A large number of homicides are domestic homicide. It doesn't make sense that having more guns in homes will reduce the numbers of deaths in domestic disputes. If it is revenge, the assailant will wait for an opportunity to take you by surprise. If it's just an argument that gets out of hand, (another major cause) and both are armed, then first to draw and shoot will win the argument."
Keti: "If it is revenge, for the assailant to be able to take you by surprise they would have to have had more than enough time since the last time they saw you to cool off to the point where they might not find it worth doing in the first place. If they shoot in the heat of arguement, both sides lose. And they both know that unless they are trying to rationalize a gun control stance like you are."

ANTI: "Criminals are more effective when they have guns."
Keti: "So is legal self-defense against said criminals."

ANTI: "I can think of 3 massacres in the 10 years before the controls [in Australia], there may have been others. There have been none since. That equates to about 50 people."
Keti: "I can think of one massacre right off the bat that happened in a gun-control environment, excluding the others. It was called the 'Holocaust.' That equates to about 12 million people. There's more than one way to 'save just one life' and make it 'worth it.'"

ANTI: "And I can't see why anyone needs an automatic."
Keti: "Of course not. You don't own one. I can't see why anyone needs a sports car, but then again I don't own one. Full-auto guns are fun to shoot. And criminals can get them anyways. Not one legally-owned fully-automatic weapon in the United States has ever been used in a crime. Illegal full-auto weapons are still around because criminals want them and banning them certainly won't change that."

ANTI: "The US is the only western country without strict gun control. I guess that makes the US smarter than everyone else. Maybe one day those same huge brains can work out how to get the crime rates down to those of the rest of the world."
Keti: "Cultural revolution. Man, I must have a huge brain because I got that down. Now lets figure out a way to change an entire culture's perspective on crime, how it is treated and dealt with. Make it so that criminals are shunned not only by employers, but by their friends, even family. But generally the people that support this type of gun control, also try to victimize criminals. Without a culture that is intolerant, rather than unsupportive of crime (with instances of glorification of crime), crime will continue to be a major problem. Have the people say to themselves 'I will never resort to crime' and not 'I need to make these ends meet by any means neccessary.' The problem ceases to exist. If you can figure that out, and get it to work, there is nothing to possibly gain by depriving anyone of guns in the first place."

If you want your arguement added to this list, please leave a comment and I will update it to include your claims and my retort.

How Libertarianism Works

2006-02-16T13:09:00.001-08:00

It's all based on this one little fact.

People act in ways that they believe to be most beneficial to themselves.

This is the most basic truth in the human society. It's extremely simple. There is very little that someone does because they believe it to be detrimental to themselves.

It describes social interactions, personal actions, all sorts of actions, including:

Crime, a social interaction: Criminals resort to crime because they believe committing crime is beneficial to them.
Free Market Economics, a social interaction: Let the people choose what they want for how much money, and let them continue to do so without restriction, and you end up with an ideal free market that manages itself.
Drugs, a personal action: Some people think that getting a high is beneficial to them, and so seek highs. They are happy doing that.
Sex, a social interaction: I shouldn't have to explain this one. Let me say "Instinct" and leave it at that.
Conformity, a social interaction: Because sometimes it's just convenient to not do something that garners unwanted attention.
Religion, a personal action: When people have faith in some supreme being, by which they believe they are guided, or on whom they can blame for their woes, they can be more confident and happier. (Religion as a social action fits into conformity. All people actually have slightly different beliefs, but are willing to change theirs to be in agreement with those of others.)
Persuasion, a social interaction: In a democratic society, having more people on your side is always helpful.

It explains all actions that people do.

Let's look at a hypothetical world with three people. Albert, Brandon, and Christoph (A, B and C for your convenience).

In this hypothetical world, Albert, Brandon, and Christoph all don't care what each other want to do so long as one isn't hurt by another (which is in accordance with the Libertarian philosophy).

Albert is rich. He has ten times as many posessions as Brandon.
Brandon is middle-class. He has ten times as much as Christoph.
Christoph is poor, and has almost nothing.

Albert is a businessmen, and has been hiring Brandon to make things that Christoph wants to buy. Christoph is unemployed/makes very little money.

Albert enjoys the money he gets from Christoph, and makes a profit between getting stuff from Christoph and hiring Brandon. Albert sees his actions as in his best interest.
Brandon enjoys the money he gets from Albert, which he uses to buy things for himself. He sees his actions as in his best interest.
Christoph likes the stuff that he buys from Albert, but likes it so much that he buys and then consumes it.

Christoph is sad because he doesn't have enough money to buy the latest thing Albert wants to sell him . He steals it from Albert. Albert, being able to count, discovers that something of his is missing, and he hasn't been paid for it. Albert discovers that Christoph stole Albert's product, and gets mad at Christoph, demanding he be paid or have his product returned, and warning him that the next time he does that, he'll get shot. Christoph does not see pain as in his best interest. But Christoph sees that Brandon also has a lot of stuff, or, at least more than he does. Christoph steals money from Brandon while Brandon is at work with Albert. Brandon comes home to find money missing (Brandon can count also). Brandon tells Albert, and Albert tells Brandon that Christoph had stolen from him as well. Brandon finds Christoph and demands to be paid back the amount that was taken. Christoph has already given the money to Albert in exchange for something Albert sold him. Brandon kicks Christoph in the nuts, and goes home feeling better. Albert gives Brandon a gun. Christoph still has nothing, and breaks into Brandon's house again to take something else. Brandon discovers Christoph in his house, and shoots Christoph in the leg before he can get away with any of Brandon's stuff. Christoph is in a lot of pain, and doesn't want to get hurt like that ever again. Christoph's leg eventually heals. Christoph, realizing that no matter who he stole from, he would get shot, but still desperate to get some of the things Albert sells, asks Albert if he can earn the stuff legitemately. Alternatively, if Christoph did not resort to becoming a productive noncriminal member of that world, he would either get shot again or starve. Christoph survives by working for Albert, and everyone lives happily ever after.

It's important to note that the problem of crime was stopped when Christoph learned that crime was not beneficial to him. This same concept scales very well to even huge populations. Once crime is very rarely beneficial to a population, it stops, save for very few acts of desperation.

It's also important to note how Brandon dealt with the problem of crime. Brandon thought it in his best interests to protect his property, and did so.

And Albert gave Brandon the gun for free. Why? Albert wouldn't give it away if he did not think it to be in his best interest. Albert decided that the loss of gun ownership was worth the decrease in crime which Albert never again had to face, and in the end, Albert got another employee. Albert also knows that when his employee believes that his employer is looking out for the employee's best interests, he has a good employer, and is happier, resultantly more productive, and more loyal, as Brandon now has a debt to pay to Albert.

Because people naturally behave in a manner which is to their own percieved benefit, any regulation of activities that are to their percieved benefit are detrimental to the happiness of the country as a whole. Rules beyond those protecting from force and fraud are such laws.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Except the last one if the moralists don't like it. God bless America, at least the parts that aren't sinners.

Libertarianism makes people happier by letting them act to their own percieved benefit. Let the people regulate themselves and act in ways that they believe to benefit them, and they will get each other to cooperate because they believe it to benefit them, and they will produce, because they believe it to benefit them, and they will seek happiness without infringing upon each other, lest the others act in ways that they believe benefit them.

Let the people do what they believe to benefit them, and problems solve themselves. The way to do this is to limit the government. Fredric Bastiat put it very well:

"Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized."

"Do it for the children..."

2006-02-03T16:07:00.000-08:00

I have a message to Liberals, explaining why I disagree with you. Now, for the Conservatives. Just to be fair.

Most Conservatives are religious people. God-fearing, maybe born-again, maybe go to church a few times a month, or a few times a year, they might even just be people that believe in following the Ten Commandments and trying not to sin.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with you. I'll not discuss whether or not god exists (I have already done that, see "To Believe, or Not To Believe" for that arguement), but the role that he plays in society.

Many Conservatives in that majority that is Christian, have a very strong sense of morality. This is also not a problem at all; if it makes the people behave themselves, not hurt each other, excellent. If it disuades people from participating in activities that they consider self-destructive, that's good too.

But there is one important distinction to be made here. That between the Church and the State.

I've heard some Christians tell me that Church and State are not seperated. They've obviously never read the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."). Even then, they go on to talk about how it was founded on Christian beliefs...which is most certainly untrue. The United States Constitution was the first to not declare itself the government by God's will. The things outlined in the Constitution actually have no relation to Christianity at all. In fact, for it's time, it's so blatantly un-Christian (not to be confused with heathen) that it should be painful to those that fail to see it at first glance. This is just to put to rest the arguement that Church and State are seperate. Besides, if you wanted the Church and State to be one and the same, you'd probably take back your statement the moment some alternate denomination of Christianity that you don't agree with was appointed the official religion of the United States.

Now, so far, there is just ignorance, assumption, nothing in itself dangerous. I haven't even brought up the real reason I'm against Conservatives just as much as I'm against Liberals. At least not in the context in which I disagree with it.

Morality has no place in the Law. That is a period at the end of that sentence.

That's my biggest (possibly my only) gripe against Conservatives. They believe that they should legislate morality. That gays should not marry, that abortions should not happen, that pornography is bad. Let's not go into the invasion of privacy and rights we get when we go into domestic surveillence. I'll leave that alone, at least for now.

Now, really, there's some major problems with attempting to legislate morality.

1. Your beliefs on what is moral differ from those of others. You might think porn is fine and dandy, but still think that gays should not marry.

2. 98% of what defines morality is faith. This would be slightly different if faith could be proven, but it can't. The founding hypothesis of Christianity cannot be tested (you can't just call god and ask if he's there, what he did in the beginning, and then prove that he's not lying). Even considering that faith cannot be proven, church and state are inherently seperated.

3. Why should you be able to use your religion as a reason to deny me the right to do something you deem immoral, when I cannot use some fictitious religion in which I am god to declare that marriage is immoral period?

4. Freedom is the one thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to everybody else.

5. All of the actions which Morality-based laws seek to illegalize do not hurt anyone but those that choose to take part in them.

Let's apply this to pornography legislation.

1. There would be too much disagreement on what constitutes "pornography" and what forms of it should remain legal, if any.

2. There is no proof that it is harmful. It's not, but the whole idea wasn't based on preventing people from hurting themselves anyways.

3. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise thereof...so if my little fictitious religion says that members of the religion must look at porn for a minimum of one hour per week, Congress would be prohibiting free exercise of my religion, which is unconstitutional. It's not important that my religion isn't real nor something I actually believe in. The fact that I can call it a religion makes it a religion and therefore protected.

4. Once the legal precedent is set that the moralists can make laws against free speech simply because they find it offensive or demeaning to women or dangerous to children, the extremist moralists will go after other freedoms that you do not agree with them taking. Today, pornography; tomorrow, masturbation (don't even ask me how they'd want to enforce that).

5. The purpose of the law is to protect us from each other, but not to protect us from ourselves. Does ownership of pornography hurt anyone else? If I have porn, how are you injured? Who is this law protecting? The children, to whom pornography is already a crime? Nope. The people in the porn? No, they chose to be photographed or videotaped (most of the time, in other cases, the act filmed would qualify as rape and be evidence of the rape). If a law is not protecting anyone from anyone else, why is it even a law? Does anyone else refuse to accept "because I said so" logic?

This does not only apply to pornography, that was just an example.

What happens when laws that attempt to legislate morality are enforced? For a good example, let's look at the Prohibition, the Eighteenth Amendment, repealed by the Twenty-first.

Cause: Moralists claiming alcohol destroyed lives and families.
Short-term effect: Drinking dropped.
Long-term Effect: Organized crime, speakeasies, tons of underground purchases resulting in decreased tax revenues, general contempt of the law. Organized crime destroyed lives and families. Al Capone becomes rich.

Wow, that's one hell of a successfully legislated bit of morality, there, isn't it? This is sorta like what the Liberals were doing in my other post on the topic of why other political ideas suck, in which they imposed laws which resultantly had the effect of amplifying the problem in an unexpected way, rather than alleviating it.

This applies to many, many things as well. Drugs are a huge problem now. Not because they were a problem before they were banned, they weren't. They're a problem now because with the breakdown of free market prices, people resort to crime to get their high. They're a problem now because billions of dollars of drug money is changing hands and the government isn't able to tax it. They're a problem now because the very fact that it's illegal causes people to want to do it. They're a problem now because the Moralists made it look like a problem, and then banned it. They tried this exact same thing with Alcohol, to the exact same effect.

And homosexuality too. Let me start out by saying that it's only a problem in the eyes of the Moralists. Do you think people are naturally going to just investigate the possibilty of being gay? No, most would just flat out reject it, it might never even occur to them if it weren't for the fact that the Republican party is seeking to outlaw it. And these days, Democrats are too busy being "not Republicans" to care that much about what really affects people, they just want to tell the world that they oppose every action of the Repubilcan party. Chances are, if the Republicans would just give up on gay marriage, the Democrats would stop talking about it too, less people would hear enough about it to experiment, and less people think to become gay in the first place.

I ask people, of all political ideas, to listen to me at least just this once.

Before you propose a law, ask yourself, "Does this benefit everybody? Does this harm anybody? Who is this law protecting that is not already protected by the law? Is the person victimizing himself, or depriving others?"

Just let people choose what they want to do. If you ask them not to do something, they will at best listen to you and at worst screw themselves up and learn from it. If you imprison them to tell them not to do it, they want to do it. Nothing is desirable until you don't have it. Porn, Alcohol, Drugs, Homosexuality, they're all not something anyone cares about until they are illegalized and demonized.

Note 1: I'm not gay. I don't use drugs and never have. Nor have I drunk alcohol. And I don't look at a lot of porn either (honestly, it doesn't turn me on that much). I think most of those things are disgusting. I do not oppose laws against these things because I have specific vested interest. I oppose such laws because they are destructive of life, liberty, and people's pursuit of happiness.

Note 2: If you are a conservative that agrees with my points, you're probably a Libertarian and don't know it.

Note 3: I mentioned abortion, but did not go into any detail. I think it's wrong to do, but I'm undecided on whether or not it is destructive enough to constitute illegality. I know both positions, don't bother trying to tell me your stance on abortion and why it's better.

Precedents, a lesson from History

2006-02-01T13:24:00.000-08:00

I find this scary.

"In 1883, Congress used its constitutional power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises' to heavily tax imported smoking opium. That abuse of the tax provision of the Constitution was the foot in the door. What followed was a wedge of misuses and abuses of power that not only tore the door off the hinge, it ripped away the entire front of the house. Once taxation was used to act on a popular but inaccurate belief (in this case that the Chinese were debauching the youth of America by enticing the innocent young into their opium dens), the die was cast. The power to tax, then, was no longer what the founding fathers had intended—a way to raise money—but had become a way to legislate 'morality' as well." -Aint Nobody's Business If You Do

Today, we're fighting a "war on drugs" that politicians and absolutely wrong propaganda tells us is the moral thing to do. (For the record, I do not support drug use, have never used drugs, and do not intend to anytime soon. But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal for everyone else.) It is totally unconstitutional. None of Congress' enumerated powers is to legislate morality or outlaw substances considered dangerous by some, and it is therefore expressly forbidden by the tenth amendment.

Let's just replace a couple words in it.

"In 1934, Congress used its constitutional power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises' to heavily tax supressors for firearms. That abuse of the tax provision of the Constitution was the foot in the door. What followed was a wedge of misuses and abuses of power that not only tore the door off the hinge, it ripped away the entire front of the house. Once taxation was used to act on a popular but inaccurate belief (in this case that restricting gun ownership makes us safer), the die was cast. The power to tax, then, was no longer what the founding fathers had intended—a way to raise money—but had become a way to legislate 'security' as well."

Someday, we'll be fighting a "war on guns" that politicians and absolutely wrong propaganda tells us is the moral thing to do. It is totally unconstitutional. None of Congress' enumerated powers is to legislate firearm posession just because it is considered dangerous by some, and it is therefore expressly forbidden by the tenth amendment, and the second.

Stockpile your guns today, because they'll last 100 years and 100 years from now we might not ever be allowed to have them again. Or we might be fighting. Can't tell. Better safe than sorry, no?

Bill of Rights

2006-01-31T16:34:00.000-08:00

The vast majority of American laws that are on the books today were made after 1912. Is that not surprising? 90% of American laws came only after that year. Income tax. Gun laws. Petty Lawsuits. Government-managed regulations imposed on everything and anything that moved. Before then, we were free. America was a free country. Now, it's not.

Before 1912, the only gun laws ever enforced in the United States were laws against blacks owning guns, and later other minorities. These laws were intended to keep Klansmen safe. We know better than this today. And yet, rather than simply repeal the laws restricting blacks from owning guns, what happened? Well, in 1934, 1968, and 1986, we got gun control. Then again in 1994, but that ineffective just-for-the-fuck-of-it law sunset in 2004.

Now, there's this thing, it's a part of the US Constitution. It's called the Bill of Rights. It tells the government what it cannot do, what things it cannot limit. Well, we don't really have much of it left. The Bill of Rights is not like other laws...it is not enforced by the government against the people. It is not enforced at all. Enforcement of the Bill of Rights is up to the people. The people must enforce their rights against their government. The Government cannot be trusted to simply not tread on our rights; they do so constantly. Let's look at some examples.

The First Amendment is "Freedom of Expression." Freedom to say what we want, think what we want, worship who and what we want, without laws enforced against us. Well, we lost that one. The new thing is "Political Correctness." You can't say anything offensive to any minority that the left arbirtrarily determines is neccessarily a victim of oppression. You have to be careful not about what you say, but how you phrase it. It's one thing to shout "Fire!" in a theater. It's another to get sued for racism, with almost no way to disprove it, because you called someone "black" rather than "African American." One student called people from Pakistan "Pakis" (much as people from Afganistan can be called Afgans), and was promptly suspended. "Freedom of Speech" you fucking Liberals. Berkeley has an orgasm for that stuff and yet you still want to force this shit down our throat that restricts it? What is it now, "Freedom of Speech unless deemed offensive"? Yep, the first amendmend is dead.

The Second Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms." Not "the right to keep and bear semiautomatic arms unless manufactured prior to 1986 and only after paying a $200 tax stamp and waiting six months for the ATF to approve it," not "the right to keep and bear arms with no more than 10 rounds of centerfire ammunition in a nonremovable magazine," not "the right to keep and bear arms with a 16 inch or longer barrel and 30 inches overall length unless approved by the government," the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. But that's dead, so let's move on.

The Fourth Amendment, freedom from search and siezure. This one isn't dead yet, but it's choking pretty hard. Everybody thank the metaphorical noose of the War on Drugs, No-knock warrants, Sobriety roadblocks.

The Sixth, "Right to a speedy trial," you must be informed of the charges against you and given trial within a reasonable amount of time, unless you tell the court they may wait to give you the trial. Technicality: Does not apply to suspected terrorists. Nevermind if you're a terrorist or not, if they think you are, they can hold you in prison without charging you with anything. And they don't have to give you a trial anytime soon, so enjoy the wait and get on Bubba's good side.

The Tenth Amendment, or the "States' Rights" amendment. Nothing that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a power of the Government is reserved for the people or for the States under it. Where in the Constitution is the EPA mentioned? The FCC? Where in the Constitution does it say that it's the Government's job to pay for our healthcare? To tax our income for Social Security? I thought so. The Tenth Amendment is dead.

So then, half the Bill of Rights has been invalidated or limited.

But wait, that's illegal! The Government can't do that!

Ah, but they can. And they are. Who's job is it to ensure that the Government respects your rights? Not the Government's job. It's the people's job. The people must enforce their rights, the Bill of Rights, against the government.

How? Well the easy way to do it, and by far the preferred method, is to vote for whoever respects your freedom above all else. That said, nobody cares about that anymore. Liberals are all about imposing taxes and socialism, while Conservatives in America are all about imposing their arbitrary sense of morality against us, the people.

So you say, "If there's an easy way, then there's a hard way too, right?" Why yes. There used to be. It's revolution of the government, the people can overthrow the government by force and reinstate a new one. I say there used to be, because that kinda depends on the guns that we're no longer allowed to legally own because of the trespassing on the Second Amendment. That Amendment is our protection against tyrrany.

Government exists for the benefit of those under it. For the protection of those that live by it. When government ceases to acknowledge the best interests of the people, in favor of increasing it's own power, it is tyrrany. This is a failure which can only be stopped or changed by those that live under it. People must choose to live by a government. They can choose to live by no government, but insodoing forfiet the benefits of living under it. If the people are dissatisfied with the government, they can destroy it, and instate a new one in it's place which they believe to better serve their interests. That is how America gained independance.

But now, the America formed 200 years ago in a violent revolution that sent the redcoats running, is dead. She is a zombified shadow of her former self. Still alive, but decaying, still independant from England, but no longer independant because of the UN.

There is a rumor of civil war, many gun owners are sufficiently unhappy with the government that they would be willing to join a revolution to repair it, but this revolution does not exist. If it were, it would be considered an enemy of the state, considered "domestic terrorism," in order to deter others from joining or being called terrorists, in this world where all it takes to start a war, is the word "terrorist" used in association with an organization.

Let's hope it never comes to that, but do what must be done in case it does. Vote for the best, prepare for the worst.

Protect the Bill of Rights with everything you must, at any cost you are willing to incur. America is not freedom. The Bill of Rights is Freedom. America has lost touch with the Bill of Rights which helped spur the country's growth into the 1920s. The Bill of Rights made us strong, and the only reason we are still strong without it is because of how strong we were made before we lost it.

Principles

2006-01-24T11:03:00.000-08:00

Nobody has them. At all. Principles are for losers now. Being honorable and sticking to your word is no longer respectable.

Get your sense of irony ready, you'll need it.

A man submits a film for rating by the MPAA. "Don't copy it" he says. The MPAA replies with "the confidentiality of your film is our first priority." Reassuring, no? You'll never guess why they had an evasive answer.

The movie is called "This Film is Not Yet Rated." It is rated NC-17 by the MPAA.

It criticizes the MPAA on it's rating system, and all the stupid double-standards it has. Ya know, sex vs violence, gay vs straight sex, big studio vs small studio...unfortunately, it's already been rated so they probably can't go back and add the double-stardards between consumer vs MPAA copying. Because they copied the movie that the creator specifically said not to.

Let's get an irony count on this. I'm out of fingers.

But it's not just the MPAA either. It's everybody.

I want an AK-47. Estimated cost: $300-400.

My mom says no, to get a car. Estimated cost: $3000-4000.

She wants to take 80% of my pay ($100 a week, I'm working for my stepdad so mom sees it before she does) and save it, and give me the other $20 "for whatever you want to do with it."

I have about $200 now. In a little over a month I'd be able to pay for one using my own money that I earned.

So I ask if I can do that. "NO!!!" Arg. "You can do whatever you want with your money." "No, you can't get an AK." Principles, principles, double-standards (she has a rifle in her bedroom), and hypocrites.

Let's also look at political parties.

Liberals: "End racism!" And then they enforce Affirmative Action laws against whites. They make "chocolate" comments and talk about "plantations".
Conservatives: "What's this affirmative action bullshit! Discrimination!" And then they try to outlaw gay marriage. Guys, just give up. You opposed the end to slavery, and you lost there. You opposed women's suffrage, and you lost there. You oppose every minority that wants rights, and you keep losing. Just give up for once.

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND. BE CONSISTENT. I'm not saying you should agree with me on those issues, I'm saying you should at least find one good rule and follow it without exception. Should there be discrimination? Yes or no? One or the other. You can't have both. You can't say "Yes, end it, except for whites," or "Yes, end it, except for gays."

Get a fucking backbone. And Conservatives accused Kerry of having no backbone, and while relatively, he didn't, Conservatives aren't exactly the perfect example either.

I'm working on making a small site about Socialism, and why I hate it. Look for a post about it soon.

In the interest of fairness...

2006-01-09T21:48:00.000-08:00

A message for the Liberal:

Life is not fair. How many times have you heard that? A bazillion and three, probably. Life is definitionally unfair. So I have a message to people that think they know what's best for everybody.

STOP TRYING TO FIX IT. YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

Even if everyone's life were exactly identical, some have genetic predispositions for certain things. It would be unfair if someone born with a disability had to run two miles per day, and expected to keep up with those with a natural gift of physical prodigy and health. To tell the disabled person that he did not have to run would also be unfair, as now the physically gifted must work and the disabled must not. And even worse, if the physically gifted must now run four miles per day to make up for what the disabled is no longer capable of. You cannot make the disabled run. In fact, the lack of exercise will make the disabled person even more physically unfit.

Fairness cannot be achieved. Give up. You do not make it better. You are not making it more fair. Forcing the gifted to do more for the benefit of the disabled does not make things more fair. It makes them more unfair.

Being politically correct is unfair. You're trying to shelter the oppressed, but the result is you are making them think they have a right to be treated better than everyone else. The black man can call the white man "cracker" all day long, and with no repercussions. A similarly derogatory word, "nigger" coming from a white man, creates all sorts of trouble for him. Is that fair?

Welfare is unfair. You're trying to give money to those that need it most, but the result is you are teaching them that as long as they do not work to improve their own life, work will be done for them, money will make itself. At the same time, those that have worked hard to earn their money have to work harder in order to support those on welfare. Is that fair?

Gun Control is unfair. You're trying to shelter the public from crime and violence, but the result is that the criminals ignore the law and prey on the disarmed anyways, even if gun crime goes down, violent crime in general goes up. You're creating a small inconvenience for criminals who won't be obeying the laws you impose anyways, yet you're making it more difficult for the law-abiding gun owners to simply buy and own property. You can't seriously tell me that this is somehow fair.

It doesn't matter how well intentioned you are. You might have only the best of intentions, you want to make the world a better place, help the poor, reduce violence, make it more fair for people that are discriminated against.

LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

Black people have gone from black supremacists and being outlawed to being black supremacists and assisted by the law in this respect.

Poor people are getting poorer. You can't get out enough welfare for the people to get themselves out of the hole they're in.

Crimimals adapt readily to gunless environments such as New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, San Fransisco...those places with the fewest guns are now ranked among the most dangerous places in America.

I hope you feel good about yourself, because everybody else that you think you're helping is worse off than they were before your kind came around looking for people to help.

The laws passed by people like you discriminate against the white and favor the black.

The laws passed by people like you discriminate against and directly violate the rights of the successful, and favor those that fail to even support themselves.

The laws passed by people like you discriminate against law-abiding gun owners and people that wish to ensure their own safety, and favor criminals that make people unsafe in the first place.

You have turned white into black, and black into white.

You have turned the rich into frugal spenders, and the poor into the extravagant.

You have turned good into evil, and evil into good.

Your well intentioned misdeeds are destroying civilized society in an attempt to make it even more civilized.

YOU HAVE FAILED IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO HELP.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE.

You have failed not in the sense that you are having no effect.

You have failed so hard that you are causing and perpetuating that which you sought to relieve. You have succeeded backwards, because you did not seek to understand what you sought to correct before attempting to exact your repairs to society.

You have failed to use reason, you have willfully defied logic, you press forward ignoring the destruction you leave in your wake, to create more destruction. You have avoided evidence, and you create your own pseudo evidence.

You do not think with your brain. You think with your emotions. You do not forward your arguements with your reasoning. You forward them through appeal to the heart.

You have failed, in every respect, in every possible way, as hard as it is possible to fail.

You were selflessly trying to make life better for everyone else, at your own expense in time and effort, and left them as self-righteous, unworking criminals.

BUT AT LEAST YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT YOURSELF. That's all that really matters anyways, yourself, your feelings. Nobody else is important.

Liberwhatnow?

2005-12-28T20:17:00.000-08:00

A lot of people know politics as left and right. Until an hour ago, I did too. For those people, it's either Democrats or Republicans, Liberals or Conservatives. A few people in the middle. I've known for a while that both sides are full of bullshit, but always considered myself centrist but went with the lesser of two evils most of the time and therefore a bit republican. I was republican on more issues than I was a democrat in, anyways, but I did agree with either one side or the other. Now I figured out why.

I found this test. It's 10 questions long, three potential answers for each question. One of the shortest things on the internet that actually works.

Well I took this test. Normally I avoid what I consider mundane internet tests. But if I'm putting it on my blog, there's probably something important about it, I don't just slap whatever I laughed at for the day up here.

On the horizontal scale, obviously I'm going a bit to the right, which is really not all that surprising. What I found interesting (aside from how conveniet the graphical representation is) is how far off the horizontal centerline I am. I'm all the way at the top! I can barely even go higher than that.

But being so high up at the top put me into a category I've hardly even heard of. Libertarian is rarely mentioned in what I do read about politics (and isn't mindless bashing of the other side). But the name caught my eye. Libertarian? As in liberty? If you've been reading my other recent posts, you'll realize why that means so much to me, because liberty means freedom and freedom is my favorite thing in the world.

And the Libertarian motto? "Live and let live." I like it. It actually makes sense. I wasn't sure if politics could even do that. It's so simple, appealing, and easy to understand that I can barely see how anybody can go either left or right. But I assume most political parties are like that.

So I've found a political identity that actually fits me. I guess that's big enough to warrant a whole blog post. Being neither left nor right in a time and place where everybody is either left or right, I'll either have a lot of people pissed off at me for supporting something their opposing party does, or happy that I'm mostly in favor of things they can agree with. So go ahead and tell me how pissed off you are, becuase if you're not pissed off, you're a lot less likely to comment.

Here's a link to the test, by the way. [http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html]

And in closing, the most intelligent words that I heard while playing GTA: San Andreas...

"When you take the worst parts of an elephant and a donkey, you get a lot of shit."

Analysis of Fanboy Logic

2005-12-19T16:19:00.000-08:00

As a part of my ongoing study of fanboys (specifically, Sony Playstation fanboys) I've been participating in some debate about the next-generation consoles on some forums. First, some traits of the common fanboy:

1. Denies it. He is not a fanboy, he just likes/trusts one company better.
2. Refutes most if not all evidence with his own bad logic or incorrect arguement.

Some Fanboys admit to being fanboys. Those that do are proud of it. They are two separate classes of fanboy that won't be touched on in this entry.

Fanboys are very different than fans. Fanboys cannot make the distinction between a fan and a fanboy. A fan, in contrast to a fanboy, is someone that has an open mind and good reason to choose what they do. A fanboy will assume that all fans are fanboys (after all, they consider themselves not to be fanboys).

Fanboy beliefs
1. I am right, you are wrong unless you agree with me.
2. I have a right to be right and anyone that attempts to convince me otherwise is an enemy and something should be done about them.
3. Our differences cannot simply be set aside for mutual peace.

Fanboy behavior
1. Proclaim stance.
2. Seek those that disagree. Identify and engage enemy.
3. Attempt to invalidate enemy's points through contradiction.
4. Change the topic.
5. Attempt to invalidate enemy's qualifications to make a point.
6. Call enemy immature names.
7. If losing an arguement, attempt to set aside differences for mutual peace.
8. Tell enemy to shut up/go away.

Behavior one: Proclaim stance.
The fanboy's opinion may come from any of a variety of places. The most popular of them is regurgitation of what their perception of the popular person has said. (On a sidenote, I believe this to be the cause of a relative lack of diversity within political parties. This can also be called "herd mentality.") Another popular one is to quote irrelevant points that they read from a balanced or objective source. Many may formulate their claim on their own based on some evidence. Also, you might notice overoptimism or regurgitated hype. Another large portion is assumptions. They may attempt to predict the future.

Behavior two is self explanatory.

Behavior three: Fanboy will reiterate what was said in step one, after saying "no".

Behavior four: Fanboy will for a small part of the post that catches attention. May go off on tangent, tell a story, or make another claim. They will not allow the conversation to go any further in it's current state.

Behavior five: Fanboy will see if the enemy is actually a threat, making sure they actually know what they're talking about before attempting to proceed, and hoping that they don't.

Behavior six: Fanboy will proclaim that the enemy is a fanboy. They will call the enemy an idiot, asshole, jerk, troll, whatever.

Behavior seven: Fanboy will say something such as "Look, I think this, you think that. Let's just drop it."

Behavior eight is self explanatory.

Fanboy Logic
Determination of whether or not someone is a fanboy as done by me is not about the spelling and grammar (though those are often telltale signs of a fanboy), it's about the logical missteps that they take to justify a perspective to themselves.

I'm going to use mathematical expressions because they are well suited for this. Math is 100% accurate and certain, so it's laws govern many things that we never notice. It might be metaphorical, but it should be easy enough to understand.

Normal logic:
A=B, B=C, ∴ A=C.

In math, this is called the transitive property. In logical arguement, rather than prove equivalence, one must prove relevance, validity, and significance of the correlation between them. (The three dots, ∴, mean "therefore")

In the next section, π (pi, in this case, pie) denotes something irrelevant. != means "is not equal to" or "is equal to everything/anything except."

Fanboy logic: In order to prove that A=C, one or more routes may be taken:

A = C ∴ A = C - It just is. "Killzone is just better than Halo."

A = π = C ∴ A = C - One thing means another, but the other is unrelated. "Halo is too overhyped, it sucks."

A != -C ∴ A = C - One thing is not another, therfore it must be the opposite. "GTA is not a racing game and it's not a shooting game, so it's an RPG game." (Yes, someone actually DID say that to me.)

A1 >/< C - Comparison of two unlike examples. "Killzone is better than Forza Motorsport, so PS2 is better."

P(A) = -C, P(A) = bad, ∴ -C = bad, ∴ C = good (the term "P(A)" refers to the proponent of idea A, often the fanboy's enemy) - Used in attempts to offend the "enemy", often in namecalling. "You're wrong you stupid fanboy, Halo sucks. Go away, this is a Sony forum for Sony fans."

A != C ∴ A >/< C - Used to say that something being different makes it better/worse. "Killzone is different from Halo, Killzone is better."

How to defeat common forms of fanboy logic:
A = C ∴ A = C is just plain circular logic. The difficulty in breaking the logic is directly proportional to how hardcore the fanboy is. This type of arguement is perfect, in the sense of having no flaws, and that it is straightforward and easy to state. Like it's circular namesake, circular logic self perpetuates along itself, without a single evident hole in the logical path. Fanboys do not recognize that the circle of their logic is a hole in and of itself.

A = π = C might seem to be related, but pay close attention, sometimes they'll try to slip this under the radar. It can be broken by forcing the fanboy into seeing the irrelevance of the pie.

A != -C might make sense sometimes. Sometimes it won't. It's most easily broken by noting the difference between not being one thing and being it's opposite.

A1 >/< C2 is easy to spot. When they're comparing grapes to grapefruit, you can probably tell. Broken by noting that they are comparing unlike terms.

P(A) = -C, P(A) = bad, ∴ -C = bad, ∴ C = good just outright fails to connect A to C in the first place, A is not present, nor important to the fanboy, it is who says it that makes it invalid in his mind. This arguement is hard to break because often by this point the fanboy isn't even listening.

A != C ∴ A >/< C is like saying "Different means better." A turd is different from a daimond, therefore the turd is better. Easy to kill by reapplying the logic to something else.

Dealing with fanboys is tricky, and it can be a real sport. I enjoy it because the collective failures of some forums can be immensely stupid, and stupidity is funny.

I might update this as I learn new failed logic techniques, but for now, this is it.

EDIT 1: Added "A != C ∴ A >/< C"

The funniest thing about piracy...

2005-11-28T16:27:00.000-08:00

Piracy is like masturbation. Everybody does it. Nobody denies it. Most people don't talk about it in the open routinely, and many like to tell others not to talk about it when they do. It's accepted as something that is commonplace, yet taboo. But that's not the funny thing, just a good metaphor.

Recently the DRM craze has hit a new low and a new high at the same time. It's more and more common, yet becoming worse and worse. Yes, Sony, I am looking at you.

So, we have two major sides to the issue. There are pirates, and there are the publishers.

The typical pirate pirates for a couple reasons. They might do it for the bragging rights of having filled up 5 120GB HDDs with music and movies, but most have a more conservative approach. Many download things that they aren't legally allowed to because they have no intetion on paying for anything that they don't know if they'll like, or that they might not like enough to spend money on. Some are just looking for something to like. Some are looking for something that they know they like. The only ones that could theoretically hurt the music industry are the last type, that seek what they know they like for free. Now there's a new kind. There's a pirating-to-avoid-DRM pirate or two out there now.

The typical publisher's response has been obvious. If it moves, DRM it. If it keeps moving, add more DRM as that thing is useful. If it stops moving, blame the pirates.

This leads to circular self-supplying problems. All solutions to the problem aggravate it.

Consumers buy CDs. They pay money for a legal hard copy.
Filesharing distributes music to others that did not pay.
Attempts by publisher to associate filesharing to terrorism fail.
Publisher makes DRM, claiming that they are losing money to piracy.
Consumers buy CDs with DRM. DRM is frustrating. Consumers realize that they can get the same music without the DRM for free online. Filesharing increases.
Publisher adds harsher DRM, citing the increase in piracy.
More consumers frustrated. More consumers fileshare.
Publisher and association push to eliminate piracy in all it's forms.
Piracy gets publicity. Filesharing increases.

See the pattern? DRM leads to piracy leads to DRM. The music industry just ignores the fact because it doesn't want to believe it't true. Guess what happens next year? DRM'd CDs, and the amount of piracy increases some.

But it's not just about music, what about all the people that get illegal versions of programs like 3DS MAX, Photoshop, Maya, Dreamweaver, Flash, Vegas...

Most if not all the people that fileshare to get those are the people that wouldn't pay for it if they had to, and could live having never had the programs.

How many times will they shoot themselves in the foot before it starts hurting? They might just be on some kind of drug or drunk beyond belief, because so far they appear completely unfazed by the multiple holes in their foot.

Suppression of creativity, and free culture

2005-10-28T18:45:00.000-07:00

This says all that has to be said. (Click)

As I said in my last post, about guns and what they mean for freedom, I love freedom. I've increasingly come to realize this recently. I've never been without it, but never want to see it go away. When freedom is gone, everything else follows.

Just watch that movie and think about it.

Crime, Laws, Guns

2005-10-14T18:29:00.000-07:00

I somehow managed to get a sharp interest in guns all of a sudden. I still probably couldn't tell an AK-47 from an AK-74, but that's not the point.

Doing a search for what guns are legal to own in the USA on google brought up some halarious results from people that are staunchly against guns.

http://www.millionmommarch.org/

The site is so chock-full of BS propaganda that I read it three times just to laugh at it. I thought it was fake the first time I read it because it was so stupid, but rereading it, I don't doubt its reality.

They show a Barrets .50 cal sniper rifle with big red lettering saying "This weapon can take down an airplane," then go on to say "The .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle Belongs on the Battlefield, Not on Our Streets" and "Last week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) introduced a bill (S.935) that would make our streets and our skies safer."

I'd like to see one instance of someone using a large-caliber sniper rifle to bring down a plane outside of a warzone in the first place.
I'd suspect someone can use a smaller caliber weapon to bring down a plane as well, if properly aimed (in most planes, the wings are the gas tanks).
I'd like to see some sort of motivation for someone to use such a weapon to bring down a plane.
I'd like to see 10 instances of such a weapon being used "on Our Streets."
I'd die to hear how this makes our skies safer in reality.

Just beneath that, it shows an FN Five-Seven. Nowhere on that page is it called that. It's referred to as "Cop-killer gun" because it's capable of firing armor-piercing rounds. Including the page directed to by the "Learn more..." link (which leads to another website), it refers to the Five-Seven as "Cop-Killer Gun" 3 times, and calls it by the name Five-Seven one time. That one time just so happened to be quoting the title of another article.

Teh d00m and teh gl00m.

Yeah, guns can be used to kill people. So can fists. Let's ban fists.
Yeah, guns are involved in a good number of deaths each year. So are surgeons. Let's make laws against surgeons.
Yeah, guns are often used in violent crime. Guns are also often used to deter violent crime. If a criminal knows you have a gun, almost 100% of the time they're not interested in you. If a criminal knows you don't have a gun, you're #1 on the prospective victim list.
Yeah, a Five-Seven can penetrate body armor. Of course, it doesn't take armor-piercing bullets to kill someone wearing body armor. Why is the Five-Seven a Cop-Killer gun when a Glock or a Beretta is not? Both have been used to kill officers on-duty.

The website hypes ANYTHING gun-related or NRA-related negatively. They keep talking about "Reckless gun sellers" and guns that can "bring down airplanes" and "cop-killer guns" and the like.

Gun sellers can't be aware of what the intent of the buyer is. Anyone, therefore, that sells a gun that is later used to commit a crime could be classified as a reckless gun seller even if they were extremely careful in who they sold to. Not everyone that wants to commit a crime would have something on their record to indicate that.

Any gun can bring down an airplane if it hits hydraulics, fuel lines, fuel tanks, control lines, or a pilot. Planes are built extremely lightly, nothing that could really stop a bullet.

A .50 cal rifle can bring down a plane, yes. Easier than a pistol, but not so much easier that it's worth mentioning. To bring down a plane using small arms fire would be almost entirely luck irrelevant of what weapon was used.

The law is enforced by guns, broken by guns, and written by the consent of guns. People that would rather ban all guns are either idiots or were fed so much BS that they can taste what part of the pasture the bull was eating from.

Fact is, criminals that want guns will get them. Law-abiding citizens would be relatively defenseless against a gun-wielding attacker if the citizens were forbidden from owning a gun. The attacker knows that the victim has zero chance of having comparable firepower to their own, and the victim is forced to either submit or die. When a lot of criminals know this, crime skyrockets.

Look at Washington DC. Gun posession is illegal. Washington DC has the highest violent crime rate in America. Who can imagine why? It must be a haven for criminals. Anti-gun laws make the criminal work environment much safer. They must love it there. Nobody can resist them.

It plays out larger than this though. Such crimes, however heinous, pale in comparison to a government gone awry.

Suppose gun ownership was illegal. The only ones with guns would be the government and the criminals. The government could quickly do things that we don't want it to. The criminals could quickly do things we don't want them to. Society's values are quickly undermined and destroyed in that kind of situation. If everyone had a gun, the government would be overthrown immediately upon going directly against society, as would crime, which definitionally goes against society.

The right to bear arms is the right that assures that all other rights are protected. To remove the right to bear arms removes the ability for people to demand change against oppression, and thus makes it easy to remove all other rights. Where would America be now without guns? Oppressed under British rule with no representation, likely just another colony. When the goverment does a bad job leading, the people with guns can fight back, and revolutionize the government.

The gun represents violence to some, but freedom to me. Without guns, people fear criminals, the government, they have no way to protect themselves. In an armed society, criminals fear people, because people have guns. The government is ruled by the people, rather than the people ruled by the government. That is freedom from fear, the most important freedom, because when people don't fear, they have freedom of speech, they have freedom of expression, the freedom to pursue happiness, and reason to be careful not to step on anyone else's feet and impede their progress toward their own happiness.

Art and creativity

2005-09-28T21:42:00.000-07:00

"Such shallow single-minded herd mentality,
It's everywhere, you simply cant escape into some deep abyssal cavity,
Nowhere to run to hide, no way to end the vast stupidity,
It's like a sea that just goes on and on into infinity."

It's something I wrote in my PDA at school.

I'm constantly appallaed at how unoriginal the world can be at times. This is not generation X. It's generation ctrl+x. Cut, copy, paste. Why innovate when you can take? Just read some words and download some things, rip them off, tack your name on it, and call it your own? It's one thing to do it to things like processes or abstract ideas or unpatented methods, but to do such a thing in art? I can hardly consider it to be art.

Signature graphics are one thing I'm pretty aware of as far as the state-of-the-art is standing. The state of the art as I see it now, it's possible to become top-notch with no artistic skill whatsoever. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3. Get Photoshop CS2 crack, read tutorials, download fonts/brushes/stocks like crazy. Do those and you can compete with some of the most respected graphics artists around, I'm sorry to say.

Style is my entire life of graphics. I make every sig to have a specific style, a certain feel to it. That feel is not grunge. I see enough grunge, I want to see something else. Something so totally removed from grunge and hopefully everything else out there that it deserves it's own category. Take something ubiquitous, cut it in half. Rectangular background with a 1px border? Hell no. Make an amorphous blob. If it's normal to have your name off to the side in approximately size 20-40 font, then screw normality, make your name 117 pixels high and dominating the entire sig. Where one person bevels text, you should make it glow. Where one person would give a shape a solid color, you should give it texture and feel. Place the elements to not just coexist and not interfere, but place them so that they cooperate and combine and complement each other, drawing attention to one another. Make every letter, every stock, every pixel something worth taking a second look at. Make every element come together to form a feel.

In the end it doesn't matter if you can make something awesome in less than 4 minutes.

"Life is short. Art is long."

I've always thought that following the trends that everyone else follows was a dumb idea. But why is that, and why does it matter?

Everybody knows that people are stupid. And everybody knows that stupid people do stupid things. The irony of peer pressure is that it's stupid people trying to convince you to do what are usually stupid things, usually for stupid reasons.

The mind is a conceptual computer, not a numerical one. At it's most base level, yes, it does work based on math and physics, but at a higher level it is amorphous and not suited for mathematical computation. It's much easier for someone to understand the concept of pouring one glass of water into another than it is for them to add the exact volumes of the two glasses together. Because of the brain's abstract, conceptual, almost random nature people are capable of creative thought. Computers are not capable of creative thought. There is no way to equate the two, humans create, computers are tools that complement humans' skills and amplify them. The closest a computer can come to art is generating a random number.

The greatest ability is creativity. Creativity is a change to the norm. All changes to life have been made by creativity. The good and the bad. Often imitating others' creativity in the process. After all, the brain only knows what it is taught and can logically conjecture from it's teachings, so all creativity should be based on that which exists, even if it exists only in the mind of the artist.

Without creativity, where would humanity be? Probably extinct, an victim of natural selection and its lack of physical ability. And look where humanity has come. The single most prominent, most dominant creature on the earth is the Human. Effects of this creature can be witnessed from orbit, from the surface, even some places underwater. Humans have spread to fill each and every last niche this planet has to offer.

How did it come this far? Creativity. Invention. The bow and arrow. The plow. The boat, the car, the computer. All inventions based on creativity, so completely new and previously unforseen, and the inventions that have most revolutionized the world. They did not happen by accident, but by genius, and they have brought humanity up from a pack of hunters to become the species with such uncontestible influence over it's surroundings that it alone decides the species that live and die. It is the only creature where it takes just one to bring about an end to the world.

And yet, today, there's a notable lack of creativity. People follow blindly in the footsteps of failures before them. Some take that which belongs to others and claims it for their own. Humanity in this state is an uncomprehensibly bad thing. It is losing its grip on what made it so strong. When traction on the foundation of power is lost, it causes panic. Panic is frenzy which causes mistakes. Mistakes made by the only creature able to end the world is a very bad thing.

Evolution of Understanding

2005-07-08T04:12:00.000-07:00

Ever since I was 7, I've been told things like "You can do anything if you put your mind to it," and other reassurances like that. I just remembered "I can do anything if I put my mind to it," and it never worked.

Now, I understand what they really meant. Taking the time to research and practice and gain skill at something, it's quite easy to become quite good at anything. There's almost nothing I couldn't do, and do better than most humans.

When we're young, we just remember things. We remember what we're told, not always the first time. We remember, but we never understand. Parents that want to reassure their children or make them confident have no idea that whatever they tell their child about the world, the child won't understand a simple sentence like "You can do anything if you put your mind to it." For years I thought it was completely untrue, because in my ignorant youth, I thought the solution to everything would be just telling myself that I can do it, that was my understanding of the phrase.

A child's brain is anything but logical, thoughts don't have to make sense to an adult to make sense to a child. Most parents have completely forgotten about this, because it's been (hopefully) 15+ years since they ever thought like that.

When I realized that the "You can do anything" saying was untrue, I started to disreguard other pieces of advice and such. I'd just tune out anything I'd heard before and never given a second thought, I'd do exactly as I was told not to because what I was told never seemed to me to be true.

Puberty is the point in life when a person stops asking questions and starts questioning answers. It's the difference between being satisfied with an answer like "That's just how it is" and not being satisfied with such an answer. The point where understanding is more important than recalling.

When I was 6, I asked my dad why the basement was always so cold. He responded "Hot air rises, and cool air falls." That was all that I needed. When I was 10, I realized that a moving molecule displaces more volume than a stationary or slower moving one, causing the same air to take up more space, decreasing the density and increasing bouyancy. It was one of those "Eureka" moments, where all the legos you'd been given snapped cleanly together in a beautiful combination rather than a pile where moving one piece would cause several others to tumble down.

It's also the point where the structure of the world is created in the child's brain, rather than the aforementioned pile. After all, when one of the pieces at the bottom of the pile ("you can do anything") was disturbed ("no I can't, that's not true"), a whole surface of the pile slid down to the ground (ignoring/defying what I was told). Once the structure is created, it's possible to change anything, the structure will remain in place unless an entire row of blocks is removed. You could take out the cornerstone by proving them wrong, but the brain will simply explain to itself an explanation and fill the vacancy of the cornerstone almost before the first one was removed.

If/when you have kids, it's important to convey not facts, but understanding. Telling facts leads to misinformed recital. Giving understanding leads to formulated opinions and ideas and ideals and estimations and logical assumptions, which are infinitely more useful than a simple fact, cleanly cut-out, and ready for a verbal copy-paste into any situation, reguardless of relevance or whether or not it's correct given the circumstances.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Albert Einstien

Knowledge comes from facts, imagination comes from an understanding. An understanding is an invaluable gift, one that I'm always very happy to receive. Facts, however...what I'm told is what I'm told, without understanding.

Believe it or not

2005-06-13T21:51:00.000-07:00

I'm rather trapped on this rather touchy issue. The existence of god, or lack thereof. I'm on both sides, and on neither side.

I was raised to Christianity. I was raised to science. I was raised to believe in god, and I was raised to believe in proof. I take everything as an outside observer, not engaged in either side, not participating for or against one side. I take everything I'm told and accept it not as fact, but as something I have been told. I will not say God does not exist, but I doubt his existence anyways. In many ways, God should not exist, there is no way he could exist. In others, there is no other explanation than God.

Christianity isn't based in proof, it isn't based on any real hard evidence. Nobody knows where the Ark of the Covenant is, but it exists, according to the Bible. I recognize Christianity as a security blanket, something people have to hold onto during hard, uncertain times. I also recognize it as a method of control. People used to be required to pay a Church Tax of 10%. Some people still do. Christianity also serves as a way to control people, to control what they do, and how they think. It tells them what is moral and what is not. It leads them to believe things that are completely untrue.

The Ku Klux Klan is a radical Christian group comparable to the Islamic sects that bring us terrorist acts. They kill, lynch, destory, set crosses on fire, all in the name of God.

800 years ago, an arguement between two priests would be solved in the most absurd manners. For example, a ring would be put into a vat of boiling water, and each priest would have to retrieve it. Whoever's burns healed first, would be proclaimed the one who is right. How did they come to this conclusion? They believed that god would protect the right and the just from harm. This torturous method of decision might have been a way to keep priests from disagreeing, he who spoke first was right. Fortunately, such practices are gone today.

But this brings me to my next point. Science has done more for civilization in the last 100 years as Christianity has in 2000. If the two disagree, who should you believe?

To me, there are only a few completely true laws. Survival of the fittest and the laws of mathematics being the two most consistently true of all. Humans can adapt to any situation, any environment. When they can't, they develop technology to adapt themselves. And numbers never lie. If numbers say something is true, then that is all there is to it, it is true.

Christianity cannot be proven using numbers. Science can.

As I said, in some ways, God must exist. What else might have started the universe? Time did not exist before the big bang. So what caused it?

The origin of life...this is the one that bugs me.

There are between 30 and 50 amino acids required for all life on Earth. In a laboratory, only a few have been created under extreme circumstancs.

Further, there's chirality. DNA is a right-handed molecule, and all the molecules within it are right-handed. Amino acids in proteins are always left-handed. If DNA were made of a mix of left and right-handed molecules, it wouldn't be stable enough to store any information at all. So in a mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules capable of forming the structure of DNA, the chances of getting a strain based on just one chirality (handedness) can be calculated by the expression 2^-N. This causes problems. It's estimated that humans have 30,000 to 40,000 genes in the entire genome. A typical gene contains about 4,000 base pairs. Let's go conservative and say 30,000 genes. That makes 120,000,000 total base pairs. There are also areas of DNA that do nothing but take up space, added to these 120 millon, that still must be a chiral match for the DNA to be stable. Can you calculate 2^-120,000,000? My computer sure can't. It is even less likely that all that material will even form a living thing. So how is it possible that humans came to exist against these odds? There is only one way. The existence of God.

Note that this isn't neccesarily any particular god, and that every religion has it's own explanations for the origin of creation.

I don't lean toward either Atheism or Christianity, or toward any other religion. I'm simply an observer, watching, but uninvolved. I take everything not as fact, but as what I have been told, allowing me to be more objective. The only certainty in the world is that it will change.

It might be hard to understand for someone that is devoutly Christian or firmly atheist, how to pick neither side. If I don't have a religion, would that make me atheist? If I'm not atheist, I must inherently have a religion. I sit at a middle ground between the two, it's very difficult to explain in words. Both sides have an equal amount of evidence for them and against them, neither are perfect, neither are ideal. So the question, I suppose, is God. Should I believe it, or not?

The origin of species: Skynet

2005-05-24T22:27:00.000-07:00

I did a little research on the Cell processor Sony helped Co-develop. I also read about it's potential to be used almost anywhere, and the Cell's ability to distribute the work to any other cell processor. The possiblity was mentioned of having a Cell processor in your TV, your toaster, all cooperating with one in your PC.

The Cell processor has supercomputer-like processing ability, and even then it can distribute work. This means massive number crunching. Massive to the point of stupidity. A stupidity which has a price.

In Terminator, Skynet is this big network of Artificially Intelligent machines which attempt to destroy humanity. And they're good at it if I'm not mistaken. Billions dead. The sky goes dark and the world is full of strangely metallic debris with other stuff underground. Makes earth into hell. Naturally, I find this in itself to be freakin' awesome.

Picture this...your computer is accessing the Processor in your TV to handle information, as well as your toaster, your bedpost, your pillow, your dirty underwear, and your vacuum cleaner. This computer would be damn smart. Suppose a program is written that the processor processes, and it contains instructions to cause massive devastation, possibly being intelligent enough to designate methods of finding ways to accomplish this, and to spread the instruction to other processors. Your home just became an anti-human information powerhouse, attempting to gather nuclear launch codes or rewrite a file on a CDC computer that could potentially lead to a massive outbreak. The Cell processors controlling the robots in a car factory receive the epidemic instructions, and begin to produce weapons designed and checked and rechecked and simulated 40,000 times in a second by an array of cooperating Cell processors. Any Cells connected to the internet would inherently be compromised. Any non-cell processors would be deliberately overheated to destruction, forcing the user to move to a cell processor, purpetuating the existance of the code, and propogating it infinitely. This constantly growing network of Cell processors would be capable of anything imaginable. So why not realize the stupidity of humanity and take action?

And where did it actually start? With Sony. With a single Cell. The beginning of a life form, the origin of a species. And the extinction of another.

Playstation 3 will be the first device to incorporate the Cell processor. But before you buy it, you should keep in mind what happened in Terminator. What Skynet so quickly became. I want to kill some of the humans, not let them create something that will take that honor from me. The humans are on a self-destructive path, they just don't realize it. I'd better get off this planet soon, before things get really ugly.

Nothing less than a full circle.

2005-05-14T18:15:00.000-07:00

Recently, Microsoft announced the Xbox 360. This is a random speech on what I have to say about it.

It was "First reavealed" on MTV. According to MTV. I'd known how the thing looked for a couple weeks and the stats were a week old. Television can't keep up with the internet. The times they are a-changin'.

The console's stats are amazing, everything is incredibly fast. Some of the technologies used in the Xbox 360 aren't even available in PCs yet. It's 700 MHz FSB is faster than anything today. The single three-core 3.2 GHz-per-core with shared L2 cache PowerPC processor powering the Xbox 360 is much faster, much more efficient than a current Pentium 4. The video chip is spectacular, and runs faster than anything available today. It also has several things that most PCs have, some things only super-high-end PCs have, and some things no other console has. It has three USB ports. A liquid cooling system. A 4-layer motherboard. It has 802.11a, 802.11b, and 802.11g built-in. An ethernet port. Free Xbox Live. It can connect to a PC, an MP3 player, pretty much anything. It fully supports HDTV and Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound. Wireless controllers. Webcam. This console is a gamer's dream system and a dreamer's game system. At the moment, PCs are better than consoles. Even the most recently released system, the first Xbox, was using outdated parts. Four years later and everything is greater. And this time, Microsoft isn't holding back on the specs.

One of my few worries however is the near-universal connectivity. Somebody will obviously try to write a virus that might carry itself across the Xbox Live network to other machines. But Microsoft's specialty is software, and always has been. If there's a way to keep people from being jackasses and speading viruses Microsoft has a way.

Also using a PowerPC processor that uses a different instruction set than one of Intel's x86 processors like the Xbox's Pentium III will make backward compatibility more difficult. They could include an emulator chip, and I hope they do, because backward compatibility is one of the things that might make or break a system this generation. It's one of the reasons for PS2's spectacular sales numbers.

What made the PS2 in the current generation was the fact that it came out first, and it was backwards compatible, as well as having a huge library of games. The Gamecube and Xbox came later, and were statistically much better than the PS2. Gamecube however was using an entirely new system for them, small DVDs rather than the typical cartridges they tended to prefer, so wasn't backward compatible, and Xbox had no previous iterations, being the first of it's kind, it had no ability to be backward compatible.

This time it's changed. Microsoft's console is first, and it's a beast of a system. If they are backward compatible, and can get a good number of awesome games out for it, they'll be in the same position Sony gained in the current generation, and then some. This is boosted by the fact that the PS3 won't be backward compatible due to the new technology Sony is going to use, Blu-ray. Also, the Xbox 360 will have a superb online gaming system. And an almost prohibitively expensive price tag may have the side effect of people not having money to spend on other consoles. Sony is losing what made it great the first time around, and Microsoft is picking up what they dropped.

Sony appears to be relying on a less devoted fanbase than either Xbox or Nintendo has, to buy their new system. Sony's system is mostly under wraps, but it's processor, codenamed "Cell", will supposedly be extremely powerful. The Xbox 360's processor is a bit over-the-top at 9.6 GHz, if Sony is going to try to outperform that it will have almost no effect other than bragging rights.

Nintendo will always be a big gaming name, but very little is known about their new system. It's called the Nintedo Revolution, and if Nintendo can keep up with their ususal innovation, they'll have a good system. They have a fiecely loyal fanbase, and are the current choice system for parents with younger children because Nintendo's games appeal to all audiences, with very little that is inappropriate for kids. This may be one of the reasons for the devoted fanbase, as many kids are raised on Nintendo. Nintendo has a reputation to fall back on as well.

But enough about the competition.

Some people may be wondering, "What do you think of how it looks? What's your take on the thing?"

I hate answering subjective questions, but oh well, that's life. The Xbox has always been awesome in black. Black and green. I think Microsoft was trying to point to history with that color scheme, back to the days of monochrome monitors, to evoke a feeling of technology yet familiarity in it. This new system isn't just another system in the legacy of gaming, this system is the future of it. It needs a fresh look, a futuristic feel to it. Not everything is black and green anymore, that's all history, and that's all behind us now.

That said, I'm probably going to paint it black.

EDIT (4:44 PM May 19, 2005): I've learned that the PS3 actually will be backward compatible, but at the time of the original post, it looked like it wouldn't.

You thought you were clever, didn't ya?

2005-05-05T18:45:00.000-07:00

Normally, I don't brag much. Sure there's the occasional, "That was freaking awesome and you know it," and "Wow, you got raped." But not serious bragging, most of the time. In this case, I have to make an exception. Not only did I have a score so much larger than his, the multiplier is a negative number, but he wasn't exactly playing fair either. So I'll start the story now.

I know this person at school. I don't particularly like them, but they know that I play Halo 2 several hours a day and wanted to see how good I was. So they get a friend of theirs to be on my friends list, Stump22. Stuff happens. Nothing interesting. Until.

After playing a fun few games involving me winning and a lot of total ownage, I received an invite to play in a game with him. Upon joining, I find the gametype to be Team Snipers in the recently released map, Containment. Containment is a huge map, and a sniper could be hiding anywhere, especially considering the invisiblity powerup, which is normally only partial, gives the user so much invisibility against the background that they can be near impossible to see. There are two people in this game. Stump22 and DUCE32 are both on the red team, I'm on the purple team. I switch to red and accidentally end the game as a side effect, before even joining. So they both are back in a pregame lobby with me. They restart the game, telling me to change teams, because they want to be on the same team as each other. At this point, I knew I'd be winning, but I had no idea how badly I'd beat them, or what they might do about it. The game begins. I spawn at red base, with them. Realizing the spawn system often spawned the two teams relatively close together in such large games with so few players, I first scan the base I'm in. I spot both of them, and two headshots quickly sends them spawning at the other base. I pick up the corpses' ammunition and hop in a nearby banshee. "Fools," I think, "To put a banshee in a sniper game. The banshee is impervious to sniper rounds." While I would be proved incorrect, the banshee proved to be the ultimate undoing of their team, and ultimately, their aims. The other two got in a Spectre at the blue team's base, and proceeded to cross the map back to red base in it, open up a gate to get the spectre inside, then get the spectre on top of the map. I was watching, more curious than amused, until the thing started climbing the face of the cliff. I flew over to the blue base, knowing a way atop the map without the use of a vehicle. I'd forgotten that this method requries more than one person and at least one sword. I look at the most likely place for the enemy pair to be, if atop the map, and sure enough, they're standing on top of the highest structure in the map. I can't quite manage to stop from saying to myself "Oh my god you noobs...think I don't know what you're up to..." I figured they'd recently discovered this glitch, which I'd known for more than a week already, and were inviting random people to join games against a single person for the sole purpose of harrassment. Well I was NOT going to be another victim, if this was the case. Soon, a friend of mine, x Montes x, joined the game. He switched to my team, and while we tried to get on top of the map, unsuccessfuly, the other team spotted the spectre climbing the face of the opposite cliff. I figured they would, they can see almost the entire map from where they were. One of them jumped down from the peak and walked along the rim of the level, trying to snipe us before we could figure out a way up. Thanks to x Montes x, this player was promptly sniped after I died. There was no other way for him to get on top of the map using his old and insufficient information, without either retrieving the spectre from atop the map or bringing the other person down. Neither were practical for them. I figured the enemy would run around the center of the map, where the actual legitemate gameplay takes place, and try to kill us. Soon, there were 6 people in the room. Both the new people had joined the red team and were all providing cover as the enemy attempted to get more people on top of the map. By this point x Montes x had to leave. I took his sniper rifle ammunition and ran forward, planning to assult their base and rack up some kills. I walked down a cavern, spotting an enemy in a banshee, then retreating. He got up to the edge of the cave and got out, appearantly attempting to snipe me if I should show my face. "Idiot...you REALLY makes this too easy..." I let him go, then walk out and get in the banshee. Now, there are three things in Halo that I feel like I'm good at. Sniping, Dogfighting, and outsmarting my enemies. They'd made this too easy for me. They gave me a sniper rifle, a banshee, and a poorly planned strategy intended to piss me off. I get in a banshee and see another three people join the enemy team. That set the team sizes to six for them, one for me. It wasn't getting any harder for me, nor easier for them...they just thought it was.

I fly across to the enemy base and begin to attack two spectres going up the cliff face. They are completely defenseless while doing so, and were easily destroyed before they could find the hole in the barrier keeping players within the level. Then their banshee took off from underneath me. I chased it across the level and back, seeing someone on my friends list was the pilot. There was a dogfight over the base, in which I shot him up, and before I killed him, I made a proposal. "Join my team or I'll shoot you down. And tell your teammates they're a bunch of noobs and they can't win." I got no response, other than continued attempted evasion. I shot down the banshee with very little difficulty, though the dogfight prior had blown off one wing and damaged the door. It didn't effect the handling of it, it just made it a smaller target. Immediately, I saw not just one, but three people join my team. Now the scales were tilting. I flew back over my own base, as the new people that switched attempted to get on top of the map as well. I gave them cover from enemy snipers by making myself a more prominent, if invincible target. It worked, but the Spectre kept falling. I abandoned the job and flew back over their base. Another banshee was airborne; I shot it down as well, with little difficulty. While I'd been across the map however, the enemy was back to it's old tricks with the Spectre. I shot at one of the two that were on the cliff face, watching it attempt to flee, abandoning the position on the wall before exploding. The other, however, made it through. Not to be outsmarted by such a foolish vermin, I rammed my banshee into the side of the cliff, near the top. I passed through the invisible barrier that the Spectre had, and continued to harass it. While it did get away, it was a very minor advantage for them. Stump22 was alone on top of the map, with limited ammo, and he didn't know you couldn't snipe a banshee. I flew in circles around the enemy base, Stump22 above me, the other team below me. In this time, most of the members of my team switched back. I destroyed their freshly spawned spectre and banshee before they became threats, and followed three people out into the open, who were seeking an active camo powerup, exceptionally effective on this level. One never made it off the base. One never got to the camo. The third picked up the camo and ran behind a rock. I flew around and gunned him down, but still minding the glitching noob overhead. After I killed him, I got what Halo 2 players refer to as "Blue Screen of Death 2", a screen indiciating that the host had quit and the game attempted to aquire a new host. When it resumed, there were only two people left playing. I was one. The other was Stump22, at that point, out of ammo. I killed him to get it over with, and put him in the proper playing field. I stayed pretty much around the red base, because I had the blue base's banshee, which would not respawn, and it was impossible for him to get back up if I was there, because I would just shoot him down. The Banshee respawned beneath me almost 10 times, as the coward took shelter inside a cave which I wouldn't enter because he could take my banshee and do that to me so easily it wasn't funny. After killing him several times, the score was 22 to -2. I rubbed this in his face, because not only was he losing colossally, but he had cheated in an attempt to prevent this, then brought in friends to help him more, and they had all abandoned him. I rubbed this into his face so hard, hovering just above the cave he was in, yelling into the mic, so he could undoubtedly hear me.

He ended the game after I killed him one last time. Final score of game, 23 to -2, him losing after cheating, getting an overwhelming defending force, and generally being an asstart. The postgame lobby opened up. "I hope you learned a lesson," I said, "about trying to cheat to beat me. It doesn't help. You're a noob. Have a good evening."

To keep up with Keti tradition, I'm going to attach a moral to the story. Several in fact. Several that Stump22 needs to learn.

"Skill takes care of itself."
No matter what the circumstances, a properly armed opponent, and even a poorly armed one, can be a challenge to defeat if he is more skilled.

"Just because you outnumber the enemy and have an advantage doesn't mean you'll win."
In reality, team games that are setup as 1vsX give the lone player an advantage. He has X targets to shoot at. The majority has one target. And even a nearly invincible opponent can be brought down quickly if he is outsmarted.

"Cheating gets you nowhere."
Play by the commonly accepted rules, and everyone's life will be easier. In this case, it helped achieve only disgrace.

"Preparation is key."
Their plan would have succeeded, if not for several flaws. They included banshees in a game of snipers. They gave me a weapon I am quite good with. And they pissed me off. That mixture is explosive.

"Don't underestimate your enemy."
I can't imagine what I'd feel joining a game that is 4 against 1, that one person completely destroying an enemy team, especially if the majority team is cheating AND losing. They massively underestimated my intelligence, my skill, and my resolve never to succumb to cheaters.

"Don't underestimate the power of knowledge."
There were certain things, such as the banshee being almost handed to me, that screamed out that their team had as many clues as points. And they had a negative score, if that's saying anything.

And one which I've never heard said, but will say anyways.

"Anyone that lives for the purpose of spiting others does not live long."
I hope this resounds with truth in the ears of all creatures, human or not.

Too smart for your own good.

2005-05-04T16:18:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've been posting on Xbox.com because I know a decent amount about tech support and the place is full of noobs that don't know why their Xbox doesn't work right.

They don't like me anymore. I know too much for them.

After spending a week suggesting people either send their Xboxes to Microsoft for repairs or attempt to repair or replace simple components themselves, my inbox is full of messages saying my posts have been deleted. Here's a quote from the most recent one:

"I'm sorry, but the Technical Issues forum is not designed to provide assistance with internal self-repair advice of the Xbox since the console does not contain any user-serviceable parts within it.

"As you're probably aware of, any attempt to open the Xbox (by anyone) will void the ability to have it serviced by Microsoft, regardless of the warranty status of the console. Suggestion of such methods could pose possible risk of injury to the person such comments were directed toward, as well as invalidate the ability to have the console serviced by Microsoft if said person was not previously aware of this stipulation."

Much of this information is either incorrect or redundant.

"...the [Xbox] does not contain any user-serviceable parts within it."
I fixed my Xbox myself three times, even after getting a screen specifying that I should send the Xbox to Microsoft for repairs. It does indeed contain user-servicable parts. I'm a user and I can service them just fine. They use almost all the same connectors as a PC anyways.

"...any attempt to open the Xbox (by anyone) will void the ability to have it serviced by Microsoft, regardless of the warranty status of the console."
It's not possible to open an Xbox without tearing open a sticker plastered with a warning explicitly stating this fact.

"Suggestion of such methods could pose possible risk of injury to the person..."
When I opened my Xbox for the first time, I quickly identified four things, one of which anybody could recognize. I identified an IDE cable, a Hard Drive, a DVD drive, and a bright yellow warning that read "WARNING: DISCONNECT POWER TO XBOX"

I'm not banned or anything, but all those people complaining about dirty disk errors will have to spend 80 dollars to send the Xbox to microsoft when a $50 replacement DVD drive will work as well if not better than anything Microsoft is willing to put in the Xbox, because I can't suggest it, nor will I. I've solved at least 30 people's issues there, spotted an issue a moderator hasn't, and solved my own problem after asking for help, without even getting a reply. Which brings me to the general point of this blog, which shall be quoted for the rest of time. This point is "People are stupid."

Expanding upon this point, it would appear that Microsoft would rather keep it's Xbox community uninformed (aka stupid) than let them experience what to me was an excellent opportunity to learn more about Xboxes and PC support, keep my current Xbox in working condition, and gain confidence from having corrected my first major hardware issue ever. And I got to keep the shitty Thomson drive. It's in many pieces now, I'm trying to get the laser out of it, just for shits and giggles. But that's beside the point. While I do intend to keep paying them for Xboxes and Xbox games and Xbox Live, I'll be avoiding the official Xbox community for the next couple eternities. If they don't like someone that knows how to fix an Xbox without sending it away, there's no reason for me to be there. I don't want to be there. They're all blind sheep. I hope their stupid doesn't rub off on me.

Attention anybody that has a problem and wants to pay someone else to fix it:

You are not only losing money like that, you're losing something much more useful and valuable in doing so: The opportunity to learn about something you didn't know before. The only time you should have someone else fix it is if you either do not have ANY free time at all, or if it requires specialized tools to fix.

I really wish these damn humans would realize the value of education. Education doesn't inherently mean school. It doesn't inherently mean college. There are millionares without college or even high school diplomas. Learning is one of the best things there is. You were given brains more advanced than any other creature native to earth, and you were given hands to hold tools. Try to learn something. Then, whenever possible, try to teach something. You'll only make the world a better place than it is now.

Time=Money

2005-04-29T20:30:00.000-07:00

Three of my friends at school have jobs. I don't. One of those friends has an Xbox, but neither Halo nor Halo 2. When asked why, he replies that he doesn't have the money.

Which is strange, because what does he work for then?

"I have ten dollars of spare money right now," he says. "I gotta pay for my car, the gas, the insurance...I can't afford Halo 2."

Now, I don't have a job. That said, I make more money than they do. They're getting a head start on America by getting into debt before they're 18. They work 5 days a week part time, sharing the hours of the day with school and sleep, and here I sit on my ass with too much free time, as if such a thing exists. Time is money, and you can never have enough money, so what makes you think there's such a thing as too much time? Thing is, they're losing money working. I don't.

In order to get a job, you have to also get other things. Things like transportation to get to work. Most teenagers buy a car. Cars often cost more than the minimum-wage earning teenager can afford. Okay, you have a car, now you need gas to make the car go. Two bucks to get thirty miles. Now that the car goes, you have to get insurance. At this point, you're losing money right out the ass. You can't earn it fast enough. If you work more days per week, it costs you more in gas and it increases the chances you'll get in an accident that will drive insurance rates to astronomical proportions.

Many people can tell you that time is money. When a teenager gets a job, they're trading in their time, which they have plenty of, for money, which they have very little of. During school, their time is often worth a lot more to them than the money they make, but they have this rigid mindset: Make money. They don't realize that they're getting ripped off, but there are things that are painfully evident to them. Working teenagers are usually under a lot more stress than non-working teenagers. For them, school is relentless in interfering with work, and work is relentless in interfering with school. Their teacher assigns a project due in a week, and they're scheduled to work 5 hours a day for the rest of that week. Unfortunately, some teenagers decide they want the money more, and drop out. Those that try to balance the two are under incredible stress. They try to balance their life between work and school while they're often just breaking even after paying for insurance and the car. They want to work harder to earn more money, because they see the immediate benefit of money, if only for a moment before it is taken away to pay for things that they only need because they work. If they were to quit, cancel their insurance, and sell their car, they would have enough money to live comfortably, afford things they want, and stuff like that. But the lure of money draws them in like mosquitos to a bug zapper. Their employers employ them because they can make money off them. An employee can make a company $50 an hour and earn only $6.15 in that same time. But between school and work, teenagers don't have the time to think about things...how much are they making their boss by working? How much money am I actually making after insurance, car payments, and gas? Is it worth it to keep on working? The employers keep them busy to keep them from thinking...it's easy to control people that don't think. If they are told to make the boss money, they will comply, and make their boss money, and not give it another thought. It's like being employed to mine daimonds. The work you're doing, if you did it alone, would make you incredibly wealthy. But as an employee, you give all your daimonds to the boss, and he pays you enough for your work to keep you mining for him, but not nearly as much as your work is really worth.

The "Rat Race," as the humans call it, is an endless cycle of money. Making money to spend it, the spiral of supply and demand, of increased pay leading to increased spending. Some teenagers think that by working, they are getting ahead in life, maybe getting a few steps closer to the finish line than the rest of America. What they don't see, is that they are a few steps ahead in a circular track that ends them where they began.

There are a few ways to actually win this race, however. Spending less than you make is where it starts, saving money that might be just enough to get a new car or a house or a boat that you want...but teenagers never see only the car, the paint job, the speaker system...they haven't learned to not be lured in by the bugzapper, because public schools don't have classes about money. For a teenager, there is just one way to truly win the race, and that is to not play the game.

As I sit here, typing this, my friends are at work. They'll recieve their paycheck, and be happy to have their hundred dollars...a hundred dollars is like a thousand to them, but all they see are ways to spend it. I don't require much to live well...I don't need a house, I don't need a car, I don't need a tattoo of my girlfriend's name...all I need is food, entertainment, friends, and family, things that I get free just by living with my parents...they make more in a day than I could in a week...for me, working is an excersize in futility. Happiness is not a fast, tricked-out car, the lastest fasion, or materialism. Happiness for me is not being defiant, disobeying my parents, or ticking people off. I don't need to tell the world that I'm an idiot like them, I don't need to conform to their fasions and views, I don't need a car, I don't need a house...all I need are the simple things. I can be happy given shelter, food, and friends. Anyone that thinks a Corvette makes them better than someone walking on the sidewalk, anyone that thinks that they are measured only by how much gold they can wear, anyone that thinks hard work alone will bring them happiness is an idiot.

Diligence and the Art of Compromise

2005-04-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

My Xbox has been reading disks more and more slowly and less and less reliably since about a year ago. Last week, it came to the point that it didn't acknowledge that a disk was even in the drive. eBay had a Samsung Xbox DVD drive for sale, I bought one, it arrived, I busted out the screwdrives and made with the modification. 6 hours and a lot of dust floating in the air later, my Xbox now has a working DVD drive. I put the cover back on the Xbox. It works fine for a while. Then suddenly, it freezes. It's not entirely surprising, the Xbox OS is based on a stripped-down Win2k Kernel, and windows does inherently freeze up. So I power cycle. Things got complicated. The Xbox's front panel was flashing green and red. Red=bad. I thought I might've broken something during the modification. I was informed that flashing red indicated that the Xbox had an internal hardware issue, and that the Xbox should be sent to Microsoft for repairs. Naturally, this sounds like a big fucking problem that I could never fix. At one point I paniced and started asking for money to help me buy a new Xbox, because I believed my Xbox was FUBAR. I reminded myself that the "Send to MS" instructions were for those that minded the warranty and hadn't opened their Xbox. In the end, it turned out the power connection to the DVD drive or Hard Drive was loose. A little adjustment and it works now, but I'm leaving the cover off for a few days.

The Lesson: Even when it looks bad, keep a clear head and take everything for what it is, and nothing more.

My friend Zuka invented this "Spork of Great Justice" thing that has become his trademark. I've since developed a saying for myself, the "Flaming Sangheili Ninja of Doom." Everyone loves the Spork of Great Justice. Enough to make ripoffs like the "Mitten of Great Punishment." Then there's my little phrase. And so far it's been made clear that people like mine in the same way..."Hey, that's cool, I need something just like that but different." Enter the Sangheili Splinter Cell of Doom. This guy's title infringes a copyright on every word.

The lesson: Cool+Cool+Blender=Lame

Some of these damn humans need to understand this simple law of perfectionism. If you have something, and you want to make it cool, you don't just cram it with things that you know look cool. There's an element of style, of orignality, in all great works. In the realm of Photoshop, never use the Halo font just because you have it. You're no longer impressing anyone by using the Halo font. In the realm of website design, you don't need to use every single awesome code you've ever seen put on a single web page, to the point where it goes from functional to cluttered. In the realm of fashion, you don't wear a patterned shirt with patterned pants. Too much of a good thing, or too many good things, truly does depreciate the overall value of something. The art of compromise is key, you cannot have everything, so something must go.

I look at websites, signature graphics, avatars, students, all of which have examples of becoming overpacked with individually good things that add together to become less than the sum of it's parts. One goal of creativity is to make 2+2>4. Something that is merely the sum of it's parts is unimpressive, it is how various parts interact with each other to become more. Gasoline and air combine to form gasoline vapor. Add a spark. A brilliant explosion ensues. However if you have too much gasoline, for example, and not enough reacting oxygen, the spark will be immensely decreased, and the same holds true if you have too much air and not enough gasoline. It becomes even more true if the gasoline is combined with various other chemicals, as in crude oil. Crude oil doesn't explode, it simply burns in a much less spectacular display. Loading something great down with other things that are individually great does not make it any greater...this is true in many facets of life, and this is a lesson that many humans, including some of those that claim otherwise, have yet to learn, unfortunately.

Halo 2, Capitalism and You.

2005-03-30T13:58:00.000-08:00

Last week Bungie announced new maps for Halo 2, gave pictures, descriptions of a few, date ranges, and gave a price tag. The crowds went wild. They spammed up every Halo forum known to humanity with posts that screamed about hating Bungie because the new maps would cost money. Those are the facts.

In my opinion, these people should be banned from those forums, a large-scale IP Blacklist should be created for all message board administrators to block until after the Downloadable maps become free at the end of the summer, and then maybe for a while longer just because they're idiots.

I've seen it likened to going to McDonald's and buying a Big Mac, then being told you don't get the meat patties until the next day unless you want to pay extra for the meat. These people argue that the maps should have been included with Halo 2 and are outraged that they have to pay for the maps.

This is where capitalism comes in. If you have something, and people want it, you charge them for it and make a profit. It's called Supply and Demand. People that don't demand it obviously don't want to work any harder to earn it, they want it given to them. There is no free lunch. Someone must always pay. Sometimes people charge only as much money as is neccesary to cover the cost of what they do and break even in the end. People often refuse to pay even this small amount, and would rather force others to take a loss just to give the consumer entertainment that they obviously don't appreciate at all.

Bungie has worked hard to make these 9 maps, for 5 months so far and they're still doing some final testing to make sure the maps are as error-resistant as possible. Bungie created these new maps, and has EVERY RIGHT to charge money for them. They are the supplier, the Halo 2 community are those that demand. It almost sickens me that people are so selfish that they refuse to pay a measly $2 for a map that they could have much more than $2 worth of fun on.

Personally, I think Halo 2 is worth more than the $55 it cost me. I would have paid $100 for the game, and in effect I did by purchasing a year Xbox Live subscription almost exclusively for Halo 2. These new maps promise to be the better than those included in the game, and for just $20 one can purchase a DVD-ROM containing these maps and extra features as well as every Halo 2 patch to date.

If you're too lazy to do someone a favor and maybe get a couple bucks out of it just to get the maps, you are NOT worth the bandwidth or effort to bring these maps to. You can still get them for free. The DVD's content can be copied onto any Xbox, and more than one. Find a friend that has the DVD, and borrow it from him. All 9 maps will be completely free for you, you don't have to pay a stingy-ass penny for it.

To all you who are pissed off at this ordeal, please, go shoot yourself. The world doesn't need freeloading whiners like you to reproduce. It has plenty of them already. The world will not bend to your will, if you want something, you're expected to earn it somehow, be it through realizing the Disk can be borrowed and still work fine or be it through working for three hours at minimum-wage to earn them. Face it, you'll have a lot more fun and a lot more hours spent on those maps than you'll have spent to earn them. The payoff is beautiful if you get off your lazy ass and do something good for humanity for a change.

If this message infuriates you, please leave a comment. I will remember who is a self-centered ranting flaming asshole and remember to contact them later to talk to for entertainment purposes. I have a lot of fun talking to idiots and making them feel stupid, and I'm pretty good at doing just that.

Sangheili vs Human revisited

2005-02-28T15:34:00.000-08:00

Surprise surprise...the human that "won over $1000 in Halo Tournaments" came over. And man did he get owned.

HS Slayer in Lockout, gametype of my own devising. Think slayer with no shields and starting with battle rifles. 25-2. Rockets in Midship, 25-4. Swords in Lockout. 25-1. HS Slayer in Ivory Tower. He gets a lucky kill first thing, ends the game after the score reaches 27-1. Slayer in Lockout. 25-0. No soup for him.

As I predicted, he was indeed bullshittin'. If he's won a Halo tournament involving more than 7 people that have played the game before then these humans are all these "n00bs" as their network regulars call them. I hope for their sake they've learned a lesson involving combating superior races. I hope the Covenant Fleet arrives soon, I can't take much more of living on this planet...and the Men in Black took my cruiser. Now it's locked up in Area 51 and they won't give it back. These humans are really getting on my nerves...they've perfected every underhanded art known to the Covenant and then some.

Narrowmindedness

2005-02-21T14:22:00.000-08:00

I had a good long talk today with a pretty narrowminded human. He said he hated blah blah blah because blah blah blah is Mexican and talks different. This is one of the biggest problems in today's world. Discriminating against people who can't help what they are. I couldn't convince him that he was wrong, that it's unfair, that he had serious social issues, nothing. Even though humans are united by what species they are, they find other reasons to hate each other, and not good reasons either. What hope does a race have that can't even tolerate itself? Humanity is a self-destructive race, if this person is any example. This human is definately among the problem causing on this planet. Even his friends call him annoying. It's not that he's younger, it's not that he's a nerd, it's that his mind is closed to anything other than what it already thinks.

In America, racism is a major problem. I don't see how one can be racist and logically back it up. But people will do anything to treat others inferiorly or as only half-human. America's history is full of discrimination without reason and if people don't learn from the mistakes of those that came before them, how can they expect to live any better than them? After I started pointing out instances in which his ideas were destructive, he started saying that he knew it all, and had a 98% in his History classes. Obviously, his history teacher is ignorant of the underlying purpose of teaching history. It is not to learn facts, but to learn from the facts. How can a race exist if it repeats its past mistakes? To err is human. To repeat a mistake is stupid. To repeat the mistakes of others is humanity's destiny. I'm starting to feel sorry for the stupid humans. No willingness to improve themselves or anything around them, no willingness to learn from mistakes, no willingness to work or help others or anything. Humanity dooms itself with it's ignorance.

Sangheili vs Human

2005-02-18T16:58:00.000-08:00

I've had to visit earth undercover using an active camo system that projects in internalized image of a human teenager. In the humans' crude transport I found one identifying me as one that played Halo 2. This human identified himself as the winner of over $1000 in contests and a very skilled Halo player. From what has been gathered to this point, I believe this person to be lying. They claimed they sold their Xbox to some crackhead for 400 dollars. What self-respecting Halo player would sell an Xbox and what kind of crackhead would have 400 dollars? And this was the first time he'd ever mentioned Halo. He's never played Halo 2. I invited him over for a game or five. Dimes to dollars he's bullshitting me. He must think I'm some kinda stupid human or something. Boy is he in for a surprise...