Diminishing Returns

Contrary to popular belief, I'm not quite dead. December being what it is, what with all the holidays and people returning to town and new video games and what not, you tend to become distracted. Or rather, I tend to become distracted.

In any event, I spent New Year's Even in Chicago with some old friends from ISU, and it was quite a lot of fun. What didn't hurt was that our gracious host had purchased this some months ago:

Yes, that is a BIG television. Seventy-three inches, in fact.

On the one hand, I'm quite jealous. Who wouldn't love having that behemoth taking over their living room, the envy of cinephiles everywhere?

On the other hand, there comes a point at which it's not very helpful to have a larger television. We spent a good portion of my time there playing Halo 3 on this monstrosity. Even with the HD hook-up for the Ecks Bawks, there was still pixelation in a lot of the graphics. Don't even get me started on what the Wii graphics looked like . . . it wasn't as good looking as it was on smaller televisions. Our host still has his old N64, and he's said that it's all but unplayable on that television. I can only imagine.

He doesn't own an HD/Blu-ray DVD player, so normal DVDs suffer from pixelated quality as well. Even HD television, the ideal medium for such a TV, starts showing problems around the edges at such a size.

This makes me curious what the best TV size is. At what point does a larger screen start impinging on visual quality?

Game Review: Orcs and Elves

Holiday blogging . . . ugh.  I'm waiting for the people I'm going to spend New Year's eve with to finish sleeping off their drinks last night, so I thought I'd throw a quick post up while I had the chance.

I received Orcs and Elves for Christmas for the DS.  It's a fairly interesting game.  Made by id software, the game is a first-person RPG, the likes of which I haven't seen in ages.  Think Doom, but with swords and a magic wand instead of guns and a chainsaw.

Like most RPGs, the main character doesn't speak . . . ever.  You're guided around by your talking magic wand, who speaks to the ghosts of dwarves for you.  If that sounds strange, then you may not enjoy the story.  It's pretty simple, but the draw is the gameplay, not the tale.  

The game mechanics are decent.  It seemed a tad easy, but I played it on the easiest setting to get a feel for it.  Like the older games by id, you can only look straight ahead, in one of four directions.  Each time you perform an action, either moving, attacking, opening a door, or drinking a potion, you use a turn.  Then all the monsters in the vicinity get to take a turn.  It's an interesting way of dealing with the awkward movement scheme, although it can prove frustrating when some monsters get more turns than you.

It's fun to play in a "throw-away" kind of way, but the game is short.  I'd say I put it to rest after somewhere around 5 hours of play.  I guess that's not terrible for a portable game, but I've come to expect a longer lifespan out of my RPGs.  

Gamespot didn't give it an official review, despite all their hype leading to its release.  If you wanted my opinion, I would give the game a 6.5/10.  There's no music during the game, the graphics don't take advantage of the DS (which is saying something), and the game is far too short.  However, it is redeemed by being fun and accessible, so I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good adventure game.

Game Review: Phoenix Wright, Ace Attorney: Trials and Tribulations

I really don't play enough games on my DS. Then again, most of the library is pet simulators and Brain Age wannabes. For this reason, I was very, very excited when I found out that they were releasing a third entry in the Phoenix Wright series.

If you've played either of the first two, then you need no convincing to buy the third one. For the rest of you, let's recap:

In these games, you play as Phoenix Wright (the guy in the blue suit and red tie), a defense attorney who always seems to be taking on clients with desperate cases. You'll spend your time talking to witnesses, examining the scene of the crime, and gathering clues and evidence. Finally, you'll end up at trial, pressing those who testify and using the evidence to either expose their lies or to convince them to reveal more information. In the end, it's pretty much like a game of interactive Matlock; you always prove the innocence of your client by proving that one of his accusers is the real culprit.

If that sounds like a wacky justice system, that your client isn't innocent until you've proven someone else to be guilty, well, just roll with it. Despite the silliness evident in the system, the game is still incredibly fun and quite amusing.

The games were initially released for the Gameboy Advance, but were later adapted for the DS. In the first entry in the series, there was a special case which you unlocked which was made specifically for the DS version. It incorporated a lot of DS specific features and was the longest, most intriguing adventure to have shown up, period. Sadly, neither the second nor third games included any of these features, but the games were still fun all the same.

The third game is still loads of fun, but I have two criticisms about it. First, it's too short: In the previous games, you had to spend three days solving all of the crimes. In this entry, most of them take place in one day, two at the most. It's just gone too fast. Second, Phoenix Wright feels like a bit player in his own game. There are five adventures, and you don't even play as Phoenix for two and a half of them! How can it be his game if you only control him for half the game? Bizarre!

Don't let my criticisms stop you from playing it, however. These games are worth every penny. If you're new to the series, you should definitely find a copy of the first one, as there is no excuse for not having these games in your library. If you've already played the first two, then stop reading this and go buy the third!

Heroes Season Two Wrap-up

It's not in my nature to ruin things for others, so my thoughts will be in the comments.

The Great Porn Debate

Last Wednesday, that legend of the not-so-silver screen, Ron Jeremy, came to UMSL for a debate on pornography with XXXChurch co-founder Craig Gross. For those not familiar with those names, Ron Jeremy is a porn star with thousands of "movies" to his name, while XXXChurch is an organization devoted to porn, either helping men to break their addiction to it or helping those in the industry leave it.

I'd wanted to go, but sadly it took place entirely during the class I teach on Wednesday nights. So, just as you'll have to, I had to suffice for The Current's article about it.

I wouldn't have thought Jeremy to be the philosophical type, so I wasn't expecting much. I don't think my expectations were entirely inaccurate; while he seems to have offered up some interesting arguments, it doesn't seem like anything new or particularly compelling. But then, I'm already fairly biased, and most articles of this nature tend not to do justice to the debates.

Something interesting has been brewing in my mind regarding porn and proof that it harms the participants ever since I heard about the debate. One of the most easily quantifiable proofs of harm to participants would be from STDs. I know California requires anybody participating in pornography to use a condom and be tested for STDs regularly, and I imagine that it's fairly standard for the industry either way. Still, there's a curveball in there I've been mulling over lately.

HPV.

Not the traditional "cauliflower penis" variety, but the cervical cancer-causing strains. I'm sure I'm misinformed somewhere in here, but here's what I think I know about the disease:

• It can be transmitted without showing symptoms
• It can only be tested for after symptoms have appeared in women
• There is no test for it in men, currently

In addition, I would add that condoms are of questionable efficacy in preventing transmission, but I'm uncertain about that mark. A lot of the articles I've seen on HPV lump the wart and cancer causing strains in together, and it seems like they would behave slightly differently when it comes to transmission. Can condoms prevent transmission? Can it be spread via oral sex? I'm uncertain, but so far as I've seen, the answers seem to be "maybe not" and "yes."

Anyhow, the point of this is to point out a big danger such a disease poses to people in pornography. Ron Jeremy probably has it, but he'll never be able to know for certain. For the women he gives it to, they'll never know they have it until it's too late to do anything about it, and in the meantime they are capable of spreading it around to others. On top of that, if condoms don't effectively protect against it, then there's no safe way to be in porn and avoid it.

Which, if you've read my paper on pornography and the First Amendment, this seems like causus belli (is that right?) for making pornography illegal; speech that causes direct harm is not protected by the First Amendment.

Of course, I welcome comments on this. I more than likely have things wrong on some count here, but I'm curious where people think I actually did go wrong.

Game Review: Super Mario Galaxy

One complaint about the Wii that hasn't changed is that the number of quality games has not increased at a very fast pace. While the Wii library of games is growing, most new games are made by third parties, and those third party games tend to be poorly made, or at least poorly take advantage of the Wii's capabilities.

The upshot to this criticism is that when Nintendo makes a game for its own system, it does a bang-up job of it. With Super Mario Galaxy, they really hit the mark.

Of course, the plot really needs no introduction. Peach is kidnapped, save her from Bowser, blah blah blah. Okay, you don't play Mario games for their innovative stories. You play them because they're typically platformers of phenomenal quality.

Where do I start? I guess the control scheme deserves a mention. It's a bit difficult to get used to in the beginning; it's unusual to be controlling characters on a spherical surface, and the lack of camera control can be frustrating in rare occasions. However, after you get the feel for the controls? Man, does this game feel right. Smooth, accessible play that anybody could pick up and go with. The new features are integrated in nicely, too, like Bee Suit Mario and Boo Suit Mario. They're fun, though they do feel a little gimmicky.

Every level feels like it was crafted just right. The graphics are simply stunning, and the music evokes something while you're playing that you just don't get from most games. I really couldn't praise this game more.

There are two features I should mention, though. One is the two-player mode. Throughout the game, you can use the wii-mote to pick up "Star Bits" on the screen, and then fire them off at enemies. Since this can be a bit distracting while playing, a second player can take up a wii-mote and take over this function for the guy playing as Mario. While this seems like I nice feature, I can't help but think that it's not very fair to the second player. There just aren't enough enemies affected by the Star Bits to make it a very fruitful role, and otherwise all player two will do is wave the cursor around the screen trying to pick up Star Bits. Wee!

The other feature involves stat tracking. Each level keeps track of how many stars you've found and the highest number of coins and Star Bits you picked up in each level. You have the option of posting this information to an online message board, which other players can view, though I haven't looked at it yet myself. I wouldn't complain about this kind of feature, as it's one of the things that people seem to like about the XBox, but these things always leave me feeling so pressure. I don't play these games to unlock every last nook and cranny hidden feature, so the idea of having other people's scores as such staring me in the face does not strike me as being too appealing. Yes, you completed the game in a perfect manner. Good for you.

Those things aside, this game is bound to become a classic. If you own a Wii, there is no reason to not own it. It's fun to play, it's a joy to watch, and it's accessible to gamers of many levels without being too simple for more advanced players.

Advertising Corn

Sorry about the quiet around here. One more exam and I should have a master's degree. Awesome, huh?

Random thought from watching television: Why do crop companies advertise on television?

During The Simpsons' normal premier slot last night, I saw an advertisement by DeKalb about their corn, how superior it was, and how farmers should plant it. I can't help but wonder if this is an effective use of advertising dollars. A commercial during this primetime slot seems like it would be expensive, and how many farmers would be watching? They're not exactly a huge chunk of the population, so they're going to be a proportionally small chunk of The Simpsons' audience. At least, I assume they would be.

Then again, I have no idea what the most "efficient" way of advertising to farmers would be. Any ideas?

I fought the law

. . . And I won.

For those of you who haven't heard the story yet, I was in a car accident back in September.

I live out in the country, so I typically take a two-lane country highway home. September being harvest season, there's a lot of farm equipment that travels on the highway. One Sunday, on my way home from church, I was stuck behind a combine. I wanted to pass, but the traffic in the other direction was too thick. It finally came to the point that I was so close to my turn that I was better off waiting rather than passing. I waited for the combine to get far enough ahead of me so I could see the traffic coming from the other direction was clear.

Unfortunately, when I went to make my left turn, someone further back in the line of traffic decided to pass, and, well, an unstoppable force met an unmoveable object, so to speak.

Pretty nasty looking, huh? I'm glad that driver wasn't going any faster, or I'd be roadkill. Of course, the crazy driver gets out and starts yelling at me. Apparently I shouldn't have let her hit me. My bad.

Long story short, the cop who showed up gave us both tickets. Mine was for "failure to signal." Which was bogus, since the officer took the word of a witness who wavered on that fact and of the other driver, who has a vested interest in saying I didn't signal, over mine.

Anyhow, the ticket was just thrown out, and I'm pretty excited. Take that, state of Illinois!

No wonder they lost

Is it just me, or has the entire nation of England lost their sanity?

We've been hearing lots of "war on Christmas" stories out of that country for a few years now. This year is no different. This Daily Mail article talks about a school replacing the normal, red-suited Santa with a green suited . . . something, because traditional Santa is "too commercial." Whatever. I'm not sure what they replaced him with, though. They say they're using the Eastern European Santa, who wears green, but the article mentions something about a green-suited gnome in an "elemental grotto," whatever the heck that is.

This, however, is the part that just boggles my mind:

School spokesman Sarah James said: "The red-suited Santa was created as a marketing tool by Coca-Cola, it is a symbol of commercialism."

Are . . . are you serious? Really? Is there actually someone in England who is that dumb? Seriously?

Stupid Blogosphere

Sometimes I hate being a small fish in the big pond that is the blogosphere. Why's that? Everyone is jumping at the bit because a "recent" study just reported turning fibroblasts into stem cells, which could make ESCR obsolete as we know it.

I'm bitter because I actually reported on the exact same thing . . . in June.

I guess if you're not "in the circle," no one cares what you have to say about anything.

*Grumble*

I'll take a democracy, please

Sometimes my fellow citizens scare me. I'm generally not belligerent about my countrymen's political decisions (or lack thereof), but this scares me: A survey amongst NYU college students found many of them willing to sell their right to vote.

What's the asking price? Apparently 20% of these students will give up their right for an iPod Touch, 66% will give it up for a year's worth of tuition, and 50% will give it up forever for the low price of $1 million.

I find the concept somewhat scary. We take a very dim view of those who would buy an election, either by stuffing the ballot boxes with scurrilous votes or by bribing people at any stage of the process to act unethically. While I can appreciate sentiments such as, "New York will always be a blue state, no matter how I vote," (Hooray for Illinois!) it still doesn't excuse such indifference towards such a right.

Here's a better way to think about it. Due to the shenanigans in Florida in 2000, Bush won the state, and thus the election, by something like 500 votes. Let's consider how much these students would cost to sway the election.

An iPod Touch costs $300. I don't know how much a year of tuition at NYU costs, but let's average it out to $20k. So, for someone to have changed the course of the 2000 election, either for Bush to have bought it or for Gore to reverse it, would be anywhere from $150k to $6 million. Considering how much political campaigns manage to raise during the course of an election . . . doesn't that seem a bit low to you?

Even if you want to quibble on the numbers, that 20% came of a survey of 3000 NYU students . . . so 600 would sell their vote for an iPod. That's still enough to sway the outcome of the 2000 election.

As I said, I tend not to begrudge people their politics, but this is just scary.

Theoretical Biology

Earlier this year, I did a round-up on what I thought could conceivably be a biological explanation for vampires. I think such thought experiments are neat. I'm going to make you endure another.

This past week in my seminar course, we talked about this worm that has no digestive tract, no mouth, and no anus. It obtains all of its metabolic needs from bacteria which live just under its skin. The worm absorbs minor nutrients from the environment, mainly dissolved gases, and the bacteria use them to create metabolites which they share between themselves as well as with the worm. Sometimes the worm directly absorbs the bacteria for fuel as well. The worm's waste products are absorbed by the bacteria for fuel as well.

I find this to be fascinating, and we spent a good while wondering how situation would evolve. Since we were all molecular biologists, nobody had an answer. Still, I was left with one intriguing question:

What if people had turned out like this?

Think about it . . . no digestive tract at all, coming or going. What would this mean?

For starters, any joke using the punchline, "Wrecked 'im? It nearly killed 'im!" would never be known. Uranus would no longer be a funny planet name. No one could make fun of Preparation H or use "stomach problems" as an excuse to get out of work.

On a more serious note, many things would be radically different about people. You wouldn't have obesity, as all of our energy would be self-sustaining. Consequently, you wouldn't really have body-builders, either, as you couldn't get the additional energy that would need. Agriculture would never have developed, nor would hunting. What would have been the premise for the beginning of human civilization?

Of course, though we would have no mouths, we'd have to breathe a lot more, as those bacteria need the CO₂ to build sugars with. Perhaps many more nostrils? Of course, with no mouth and no tongue, this leaves open the question of how communication develops. Perhaps vocal cords still exist in whatever airways we'd use, so there would still be some form of vocal communication, but it wouldn't resemble anything we call language.

And, well, reproduction is a whole other case entirely. Without a waste tract coexisting with the reproductive parts, would those parts have turned out the same? Or would they be entirely different as well?

Go ahead and add in your $0.02. I'm curious what the thoughts are on this one.

Flash Portal

I haven't gotten to play Portal yet . . . silly me for not buying the Orange Box. Still, this seems to be a suitable (and ridiculously fun) alternative: Flash Portal.

Go. Enjoy.

Why is it a guessing game?

I'm sure I've posted about this at some point before. Let me be very specific about my point.

Perhaps I'm just a crank. I'm starting to suspect it's the case. Still, I heard a song today that riles me every time I hear it. The lyrics are below:

Draw me close to you
Never let me go
I lay it all down again
To hear you say that I'm your friend

You are my desire
No one else will do
'Cause nothing else could take your place
To feel the warmth of your embrace
Help me find the way
Bring me back to you

You're all I want
You're all I've ever needed
You're all I want
Help me know you are near

Who is this song about?