Older blog entries for compiler (starting at number 67)

...are made up of people, as are governments. It is impossible, by definition, to attack a nation without injuring its people.

As Americans we are responsible for the policies of our government. Indifference is not an exception. Opposition is not an exception. We are America, like it or not.

Likewise, people of the nations supporting terrorism cannot expect to be spared the price of war. It is a hellish price, and I fear that some leaders may choose to pay it with the others' souls.

Freedom...

...is an abstract concept, most days. Not on September 11, 2001. We welcomed the visitors as millions before them, provided opportunity, our homes, and our culture. They, with their families, accepted those gifts. They then turned to destroy us.

They were free to do so, as was Tim McVey. No different, really. We welcome strangers because the make us stronger, we hope. They have in the past and will again. This incredible menagerie of lives and cultures hinges on the rights of the few, and must continue to do so.

We will crush terrorism, and defend our freedom. Freedom has a cost, a part of which is safety. Tuesday we made a down payment.

yakk: "Is there anything more brave than dying to save your country / people / faith?"

Yes, living. Choosing to die often defines cowardice. As does killing from the shadows and hiding behind hollow offers of comfort. These people are insane, irrational and they are cowards. Period.

Can it be illegal for our government to sponsor acts, groups or individuals that undermine the abilities of any individual to pursue happiness?

But it is a part of the problem. Religion has been used as a tool to manipulate "the masses" since the beginning of time. Some research suggests a genetic predisposition to religion and fanaticism -- it's that old.

The doctrine of conversion (i.e. "all of the unenlightened must be saved") is a perennial example. I don't think it's necessary to enumerate the evils committed in the name of that doctrine, as history speaks for itself.

But like I said before, this isn't about religion. Religion is just a tool used by the maniacs responsible to achieve the desired result -- feeding their egos. These people are small.

Are you saying that killing 2-10 thousand people is NOT an act of war? That is complete bullshit.

The insanity required to commit these acts is the problem. It isn't about religion (though I blame the doctrine of conversion for starting the whole thing 1000 years ago). It isn't about politics. It is about the insanity of a small number of influential zealots, not different than the bastard(s) that bombed Oklahoma City.

They need to be stopped at any cost. The acts of 9/11/2001 are outside the bounds of civilized discourse, answerable only by war. They are heinous and threatening enough to justify retaliation outside the bounds of due process. That is war.

Fanaticism of any kind (at home or abroad) is the enemy of civilization. Do not tolerate it in others or yourself. This is as true in Ireland, Israel, and Afghanistan as it is in New York.

To what end? To commit the act without claiming responsibility, without explaination is irrational. It can serve no purpose. Capitalism and democracy are much larger than the US -- are Japan, China and India next? All different forms of the same concept.

What cruelty. What stupidity.

May the guilty and their associates smoke large turds in hell.

This isn't an original thought, but I can't find the source right now. I'll keep looking.

Ever forgotten where you were in a conversation prior to interuption? Ever wonder what you went into a room for? Rewind!

We have the tech to record a continuous audio stream of our lives. I want to. It would help, and is easier than tatoos (movie: momento). The wireless harddrive is here, and media compression technology is cool and good.

Imagine having your own "little black box."

Lots of interesting privacy and fair use debates here. I suspect it would get ugly...

(This is a work in progress, I'll re-edit shortly.)

As the costs of broadcast sports spiral upwards, broadcast gaming is gaining viewers and improving technology.

Who would want to watch people play video games? At least 200,000 using current technologies. Enough to justify a professional league, significant tournament purses, and garner the attention of a multi-national media conglomerate. And make the news.

How is watching a team-based sport happening in a virtual venue different than watching the Raiders play in Oakland?

1) It's cheaper. Less infrastructure for teams, sponsors, event coordinators, broadcasters and maybe even viewers. Helmet cams are expensive, 3rd-person perspective rendering is not. The content is digital, as the effects have been for years.

2) It can be more compelling, and participatory. E.g. "Some lucky viewer will be selected to go head-to-head with the champion..." Teams are not geographically restricted.

3) Sponsors love it. E.g. can you alter the Raiders' uniforms based on a specific viewer's demographics? Hmmm... That's novel.

4) It uses the Internet in a smarter way. Unlike broadcast video, which sends millions of pixels across the wire, the typical spectator mode game sends only the relevant information required to render the scene. Users' hardware does the production of the pixels. This technique produces high-resolution video over a standard modem. Nice.

5) It works with TV. A cable head-end (or 3rd-party broadcast production shop) is just an abstraction of a viewer in this world. It can render the scene, overlay graphics, add commentary and commercials, and then blast the signal out in traditional form (over the air or in cable). Hey, it reaches new customers and old customers with the same content -- that's a good business model.

This is coming, and it will change what we think of as TV. Companies like discreet have the technology to put events "online, on-air, on-screen" in real-time. They've been doing it with traditional sports and TV for years. If people will watch the WWF, they'll watch this.