Thursday, August 25, 2005

Software Preview: Google Talk (Beta)

Let me begin by saying that Google is indeed trying to take over the world.

As of now, they have:

-A search engine for everything
-A usenet client
-A free email service
-A customized homepage
and now
-An instant messenger client

To clarify a few things, this isn't actually a new proprietary format. Rather, it's just a google client to connect to a Jabber IM server. Of course, that doesn't matter, because Google makes it work better anyway.

Only people with Gmail accounts can use the client at this time, and since it's so new buddy lists will be small. You can invite your gmail friends onto it, and chat with those already on your list.

The features are pretty simple. You can email contacts, and IM them. You can minimize IM windows easily, and if it is minimized, a popup will show up when new messages appear.

The greatest feature, however, is voice chat. It's seemless, lagless, and perfect. Once again simplicity makes things perfect. It works seemlessly with a microphone, and I can personally attest to its ease of use.

There are some problems, however. While you can check your inbox, I have yet to find a way to disable a popup when a new message arrives. You can't talk to more than 1 person at once. However, these are minor issues. In the end Google shows once again that it can take something that's been filled with useless trash and turn it back into the simple thing it once was. Google Talk will be the best IM client out there...if it gains users.

Monday, August 22, 2005

News:Pamphlets of the New Generation

No, I'm not closing the blog.
However, I have created a message board.

http://s13.invisionfree.com/Pamphlets/index.php

Friday, August 19, 2005

Videogames Don't Kill People: Parents Do

The world's problems with videogame violence would be solved a lot quicker if parents actually payed attention to what their kids were doing and also did some research.

To begin: video games are not responsible for teenage violence. Not now, not ever. Even more so, it has been through the ignorance of actual video gamers that has led to this. Most parent's conceptions of gaming are so old that it drives them into bad stereotypes, allowing 12 year old kids to buy games geared and marketed towards adults.

Let's start with something: even with video games and the supposed tools of killing from the US military, juvenile crime has been on the decline, at one of its lowest levels in 30 years, as of right now. What does this say? Well, for starters, video games surfaced in the 1960's, about 40 years ago. If the crime rates have been dropping for 30 years, then it's obvious that video games aren't causing more crimes. This is just fear mongering on the part of senators clamoring for time and those who say "think of the children" when they're merely looking out for themselves.

Moving on, we encounter the main problem with video games today: not enough parents know what they're doing. They buy into a bad stereotype, the one of a video game industry still geared towards the little kids, boys specifically, in which nothing bad is supposed to ever happen. This might have been true...20 years ago, but today, that is the saddest and most incorrect stereotype ever created by man, dare I say it even more incorrect than the male female stereotypes.

Fact: A very large part of the video game market today is those people 18 or older. Get over it. There are a lot of video game players who are legally adults, and game developers will target them, no matter what you do. The only effective tactic you have is to not let your own children play the games you dislike. Nothing more.

Fact: The video game industry has a very strong governing board for ratings in content, the ESRB. This group, in fact, was stronger than the MPAA ratings, introducing brief textual descriptions of content found within video games. Movies took that from video games, not the other way around. The ESRB ratings are also similar to those of the MPAA, look here for yourself.

Fact: The studies done to prove video games cause violence are inconclusive at best. All they say in the end, because they don't actually have games in their context, and because the studies themselves reached inconclusive results lead to this: agressive people like agressive games. It doesn't show that the games create the agressive people, it just shows that those people like the games. They were agressive before they played the games, nothing more. Don't claim these studies as proof, because the end result is that they're not.

Fact: Video games are extremely social nowadays. Almost every game in existence comes with multiplayer options, most of which on the PC include online multiplayer options. People meet friends, enemies, and even lifelong partners through these games nowadays. Face it, adults. More people play video games today than ever before, and they're meeting up. Video games are now social tools, used to meet others. They are no longer just the 1 kid sitting alone by himself playing. It's that one kid, who goes to school the next day and talks about his adventures, the one kid, who forms clubs and websites. Video games are no longer single player activities.

Fact: Girls play video games, a lot of girls, in fact. See above mention of people meeting up as life partners through games. Add to that casual games like The Sims and you have a formula where girls are bound to be found. Even more so, games almost always have a strong feminine role, which is more than you can say for movies and television.

Fact: Parents need to take more responsibility. The standards are there. The rating are there. The facts are there, all it'd take is for some parents to take greater responsibility, and video games would not be any problem. They've become an accepted part of today's society, so it's time for parents to step up and take up the mantle that belongs to them. It's not the video game company or the government's job to regulate this new form of art/entertainment, it's yours. If you don't think it's appropriate, then don't let your children get it in the first place. It'd save us a lot of trouble.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Different Theories

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

It is well know that Bush wants to teach creationism in school. However, instead of blatantly stating it out, he goes along the lines of, "different theories." This pretty much violates the separation of church and state.

Well, there are several problems which arise with the theory of creationism. First, it has nothing except a black book backing it up. Evolution has scientific evidence backing it up, DNA evidence, fossil evidence, etc. The only thing that evolution is missing is well, a few more fossils to fill in missing gaps. Creationism also has the problem of inbreeding. For example, my family has bad eyesight. If have kids with my, "sister," my daughter will also have bad eyesight. Now if this is done for many years.....well, my family is basically blind. Evolution does not have this problem, because there are many people with many different traits, bad traits are not reinforced.

Now, creationism is found in a black book we like to call, the bible. It states that Adam and Eve had two sons, and three daughters. Some one must have had sex with a family member for us all to be here. Also found in the bible: incest is a sin. So even if we did use the bible as a source, it contradicts itself.

Evolution is not based on religion. There is no set religion out there that says, "Evolution is right." There isn't even a cult that states evolution is right. This does not include atheists and agnostics, for the reason that they are not part of a set religion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, etc).

Further more, if Bush wants to teach different theories, I want him to teach all the other theories. Including the Egyptian religion, where the world was created by the great god jacking off. How's that for a different school of thought.

My solution? Leave evolution for biology. Creationism, as well as any other religious explanations should be left to history, culture study, or English. They're just STORIES. I mean, which is more accurate, a scientific paper on evolution, or the story of Adam and Eve? Last time I checked, a scientific paper is more accurate than some crap sci-fi book I read in the bookstore.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Karl Rove

Bad Eli.

Wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson played a key role in sending him into Africa in order to investigate possible sales of Uranium to Iraq. Her maiden name is Valerie Plame, which was revealed on July 14, 2003. Joseph C. Wilson, during his time in Niger, found little evidence to support Bush's claim of Iraq obtaining nuclear material from Niger (which was made one year later mind you).

Yes, Valerie Plame is a CIA operative. No, I'm not a spy for another country. I did not hack into the CIA mainframe, this I found off of the New York Times. I thank you Karl Rove, for leaking this information. Now the whole world knows that Valerie Plame is related to the CIA.

Karl Rove, if you didn't know, is one of those right winged extremist. Him and Dick Cheney are two of the scariest republicans around. Quite frankly, I think they are manipulating Bush. Well, Karl Rove leaked the name of a CIA operative to a person known as Mr. Cooper on July 13, 03. Hell, two of Karl Rove's aides testified to the CIA leak.

Now, I think Karl Rove should at least have his position revoked. Especially because he is a threat to national security. Valerie Plame is a CIA operative, and will probably not lead a semi-safe life again. She may be hunted down and kidnapped for classified information. What Karl Rove did, is bordering treason. I would vote to have his head cut off, however it was an accident. Or so we hope. Nevertheless, at the very least, Karl Rove should have his position revoked.

And Bush should listen to his Intel.

Read Philosophy

Today's decisions are based too much on 24 hour news networks. While channels such as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC allow an instant access to almost all the information you can handle, it needs things to fill the time. And so they invented the political show.

Now, don't get me wrong, political shows serve a good purpose. Without them, there'd be even less insight into our current government, and people like Karl Rove wouldn't have eyes watching them. But they aren't always useful for actually understanding what the goal of the political actions are.

I mean, look at Crossfire. It was just a bunch of people yelling at each other. Look at Hardball, there's even less intelligent talk on that. Most of it is left into partisan bickering about nothing important, all it deals with is a random assortment of clashing facts. Nothing ever gets accomplished on those shows.

Even worse, they take away from questions about the actual government. Foremost among these is: What is its actual function? What should the government do?

That's not what today's politics deals with. No, they deal with "What were they thinking when they did this?" and maybe, just maybe if you're lucky enough, they'll deal with the possible implications.

That's where philosophy comes in. This is not a nation founded under one god, it was a nation forged through the ideals of the modernists, and the modernists were great philosophers.

Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau. Find some books by them, read them to truly understand what our government should do. Go even further. Read post modernists such as Michel Foucault or even Classicists like Plato and Aristotle. In the end, not only will you have gained insight into a government's job, but also gained a new perspective of such endearing traits of humanity such as justice, equality, and society.