WoW Patch release

Blizzard released the 2.4 Patch. This as always shows how popular and impacting WoW has been on the online community. Within hours the support websites which allow access to the add-ons we over stretched in terms of their bandwidth and collapsed. Players and small companies spent enormous amounts of energy in this virtual world. Add-Ons which make the game different allowing more access to more information at once, companies trying to make money with advertisement on their sides because supplying WoW add-ons will guarantee many hits. Other companies try the less legal but faster way of selling services in-game for real-world money such as 'power-leveling' of characters and their professions as well as selling virtual money to the players for real money.
But what does all of this mean for the real world and economy does this mean that we can create something completely artificial and people would buy it even if they could only benefit from it when using a specific game? There are by now many MMORPGs out there many of them use a interesting method which allows the player to buy a certain made up in-game currency for real money some others offer bazaars where game money can be exchanged for time cards with other players. The amount of money flowing through MMORPGs has grown to an enormous amount but what does this mean for our way of living? Are those people who play these games to such an extent people who are trying to make a living or attempting to escape from reality? Are our real lifes to boring to un-engaging that a virtual world seems so much more enticing? Over all many who never played these games wonder "What makes these games and any PC/Console games so attractive to so many people?" But ultimately one has to see these games in context, there are many games which we have created in the past and MMORPGs as well as other less engaging games are really nothing else but the next step of this. For example chess, there are chess champions in the world those are people who do nothing but train playing chess. Essentially playing games is the same as playing chess or playing a team-sport. It exercises and challenges the player in different way however it is a artificially created challenge which is to be over come. And this overcoming of the challenge is exactly what makes these games so interesting and in some cases addicting.

Are you ok?

I was asked by one of my professors recently 'Are you ok?'. I of course answered the standardized 'Yes'. I left his office a short time later and considered this what does actually mean to be 'OK'? Does it mean to have money is it a certain state of being; could it be that just being happy is this being 'OK'? I continued and wondered on if being ok is what we want. Then wouldn't everyone have to know what 'OK' in that case means? The challenge at this point of course would be the question of standards what is that elusive 'OK' standard? Could it simply be that it is a state of peace a state in which we do not question ourselves as strongly? The challenge most young adults face these days is the question 'What do I want to do?' We have all seen the news articles saying that todays youth has it hard because everything has already been done and discovered; but is that really true? I mean ultimately we face new set of challenges today we still have ignorance and prejudice doing damage everywhere we look. Today's challenges are the challenges of a modern age. We can still fight for freedom; just now we fight for freedom of information and thought. We can fight to protect the environment which seems to be tethering near the brink of collapse. We can discover ways to life in symbiosis and learn to understand the rest of the planet. We still know less about the sea life the we do about the nearest solar-bodies. But in all of this information flooding at us what does it mean to be 'OK'? In the modern world we are told that we should do this and that is that what allows to be 'OK'? Is being OK being in a good financial standing? Is it happiness? Is it being content? Is it a positive mixture of everything?
For me personally I would say that being 'OK' stands for being anywhere from content to happy. However instead of answering such questions in a state of trance why not consider what it means? Maybe think 'Am I really OK?' 'Are you OK?' is not a simple question as it seems but rather a very meaningful question which common use and conversation does not receive any or only little consideration.

What is our reality

The question came up when I was watching 'A Dinner with Andre', what is reality? We create such a great amount of our environment but is that good? We have certain odd standards which seem to distort our interaction with people, habit becoming a way off life. For example teachers and professors create this collection of information and repeat the course again and again after they did it once. They know when to make jokes and know already what to say at the beginning of the year. The average human in western society lifes in a dreamworld created by others we do not try to be within our environment but simply choose to enjoy while not even attempting to break out of this dreamworld. How many people break out of habits? How many people really attempt to see something they do not see? Most people today are filled with apathy and disinterest in actually taking actions. We might as well call the modern man who lifes in a dreamworld the sleeping man, they do not attempt to do something different. People use heating, and other tools to distance themselves from the environment and reality by doing so the times of the years become less and less impacting.
What causes the continuous boredom of people these days? Watching TV? The living after the rule of money? Talking about leaving a city or place but never doing so?
For example just ask yourself the question 'What actually affect me?'

Blizzard

Blizzard is seemingly working over time, Blizzard released a new Starcraft 2 Trailer which now reveals the Zerg with the help of a in-game trailer.
And here it is.


There is also a new Trailer for the 2.4 Patch which is going to come in the near future. Which shows the areas and dungeon.

Music Videos | Kapa’a-Wailua vacation rentals | mp3 music

And of course the already known but always popular LK Trailer.

Free Speech

Free Speech has been a hot topic ever since the first conflicts between religious groups mostly. Some joke or idea is brought forward which then offends the other side. The best recent example is still the incident with the Comic coming from the Danish newspapers criticizing the Muslim extremists. This has of course triggered a wave of attacks and threats against that newspaper originating from the Muslim camp, many of those threats probably came from that very extremist camp however there is one issue that is often silenced to death in that matter. Western culture is build on the believe that Free Speech is a fundamental right and as such we are free to say anything anywhere because that is the right we have and many of our ancestors have fought and died for it. Is there any reason to castrate such a right? If we limit Free Speech then its not really Free Speech any longer is it? It becomes Free Speech within these boundaries and if you happen to leave these boundaries then you are in a no-man's land and can be punished for venturing there. However what is more important is were the criticisms coming from both sides in the form of comics right or wrong? The Comics coming from Denmark dealt with the hypocrisy of these extremists who do these killings in the name of a religion and they points were valid and good. The same can be counted for the points made against Christianity by the counter comics coming from the Muslim newspapers a few days later. Neither of them were telling lies and I can't recall many Christians getting worked up over the Muslim comics depicting Christ in same questionable actions. And how do we know that it wasn't only the extremists, the ones doing the bombing and the ones criticized by the comics who screamed and threatened. They after all are the loudest but they do not represent more then a fraction of the people following the Muslim faith. If now you argue 'Well yes, but how do we know who?'. Well we don't but neither did we of those who were in IRA or the members of German terror groups or KKK, etc there have always been many extremist groups with different aims and goals however if we start prosecuting the people or the faith they come from then we are no better then they. We are doing them a favor by creating the new meat for their recruiting, Free Speech is not just a tool for criticism its also a tool to allow us to understand another side, and maybe see similarity instead of some small differences between people. After all isn't that what many things we do to day focus on? Free Speech is after all one of the core believes in Western culture and society.

Advanced Education

Advanced Education that what every 'proper' young adult should desire. Is somewhat questionable, this education mostly consists of reading certain pre-selected materials, then a professor most regularly explains to the students what they just read, of course that presumes that the student did not engage sufficiently with the material on their own or lacked the ability to understand it. So instead of allowing the student to engage with the material and work with it in a discussion the professor explains what they read and not more. There are of course exceptions from that rule however the overwhelming number of courses does indeed consist of this. I of course refer mostly to humanities related courses. The question in this finally then is if the student can read on their own and if the professor reiterates exactly what the students have read then can they not read on their own for what do they need the professor if the student can read the material on their own and comprehend its meaning. Then would it not mean that ultimately the professor serves a control function and not one of allowing free intellectual growth. Can such control and limitation as well as slowing down of the intellectual growth, wouldn't that lead to stunted growth and limitation of the intellectual independence.

Beating a dead horse

Beating a dead horse seems to be a fun activity people do it all the time everywhere. There is not a seconds hesitation to revive a discussion which has been long dead. For me personally I compare it to beating a Piñata for ten hours and still not being done, sure at first its new and fun you get to beat with a stick on this horse like (or other animal likeness) object thats hanging down, but after ten minutes you begin to wonder what really is in there yet you can't crack that darned shell, two hours later you begin cursing and just want that damned thing to open so that you can have those sweets that are supposed to be hidden in there. After five hours you are frustrated maybe a bit tired and have stopped cursing two hours ago, but you don't stop because now you don't want to waste those previous five hours, at ten you finally breach the Piñata's hard shell and find absolutly nothing because this Piñata had a very thick skin and thus no space for sweets.
All that the beating of the dead horse can bring is the same as this Piñata which would be a waste of time and energy as well as the often occurring frustration which appears at the end of such a futile act.
So why in god's name would you ever want to engage in something that you know will only result in those things and end up with the same or similar conclusion as the one previously available?

John Yoo...NARG

Now John Yoo is known to pretty much any person who reads the news and if you are not one of them Yoo bashing is in. Now of course I had traced that event to his book, but honestly considering the bashing I decided it wouldn't require me to join in. Well that was until one of my professors told us to read Yoo...I did not get past page 17. Now why was that? Simple really reading Yoo makes you feel as follows: You just came home to realize that your girlfriend/wife left you with your best friend, you house just burned down and your mother and brother(s)/sister(s) got hit by the bus all at the same time, your dog died while trying to eat a squeaky toy just seconds before your arrival and the house burned down as you arrived, the car was in the garage (thats what you get for walking) your friend chose your best friend and your girlfriend/wife over you and have excommunicated you and any other relative you might have had died in accidents as well. I would say that about sums up the negative effect of the first 17 pages. I would have insisted on a sticker stating 'Read this on your own discretion suicide may result out of reading this material.' But now instead of bashing the horse further I will bash the book, of course as always as I' am human in concept I might be mistaken, while that rarely occurs it does occur. And as such you can as always post and point out how horrifically wrong and lost I' am.
If I tell you to take a hike then don't take it personal its simply that I know that I' am right and you are not if I do that...well ok I like to believe that I consider the other sides points. But Yoo is pushing it and his book is something that should come with a nurse of the suicide ward just to make sure.
Now I will go down through those horrifying 17 first pages point by point and say what I think is wrong in them.

1. The title is completely wrong he called the book 'War by Other Means' now after those pages I would say it should be called 'War by Any Means' because that is what it promotes in those pages. (He might contradict everything he says in those pages in the rest of the book but honestly there is only so much I can take of that book.)

2. He claims in the introduction that Alexendar Hamilton, or rather uses a quote of Madison's to claim, that Hamilton was a Anti-Republic Pro-Democrat, but as far as I can recall Hamilton is a Pro-Republican through and through. I would base the quote on the falling out Madison and Hamilton had after writing the Federalist papers.
Considering that the US today is a warped form of the Republic, but yet it still is not a 'through and through' Democracy because that would make any Representation by elected officials unnecessary the people would make every choice directly by voting on any given issue.

3. Then on Page 2 he quotes Joyce Appleby '...Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, nor warriors.' What he fails to address with this quote is why people revert to Terrorism. First Terrorism means that you attack your enemy not with conventional weapons but Terror to achieve your goal. What could Al-Quaeda want? Well they have stated repeatedly that they want those they consider 'Invaders' to leave the Middle East in other words us, the Westerners. Why would they want this? Because they want to handle their own affairs, many countries are not happy with the influence a military base of another country has on a region. For example Germans have often protested and wanted the US bases closed, the reason why that did not go through was because the government was afraid of what might happen economically when the business of those bases left the country. But overall those bases are causing many problems, the locals are boarded out and the Soldiers stationed there do not try to fit in and expect the locals to speak English instead of speaking the local language. The children those soldiers have are often angry at being put in this environment which they do not necessarily like because they want back to their home country. And that anger often is released in vandalism.
I would not be able to name any Terror group who did not have any aim because its a tool only desperate people use if they see no other way out any more. If those who command the soldiers will not listen to you what do you do?

4. Yoo claims that 'War is too important to be the subject of partisan politics.' I would have to answer that it is far to important to not be considered carefully, to not be analyzed by everyone involved to insure that the war is not fought over some pride issue. To attempt to see the other sides view maybe they are right and they are being pushed in a corner and they see no other way out anymore but lashing out at those they see to be the aggressors.

I would like to point out two things here, first the US projects the image of being democratic not a Republic, by doing so every citizen is to blamed as well for the actions of the country. In a democracy the people of the country are part of the decision making process and thus are to blame for any action taken by the government.
Second the US often acts only and purely on self interest ignoring the people who are living in the local area. This causes a certain dislike while at the same time bombarding the world with Hollywood movies showing how good the US citizens have it.

Seeing as I have already written so much I will retain the other points for responding to critics. I had intended to make 30 points and stop there but this is already long enough.

The lost Rebel

The lost Rebel is a pet concept of mine, it refers to the idea that we know that we are supposed to rebel against something just that we have no idea what it is we actually are rebelling against. In today's world we know that rebelling is good, but why and how do you rebel? By buying a product that claims to be rebellious? Well in reality we in this western world do not rebel any longer. It almost seems as if the western population is to old for that now, but not just that maybe to passive too. The trouble is that you are not a rebel by conforming to the system and buying goods, that is not what a rebel does a rebel rebells against the system against the products and tries to sabotage this with the goal to achieve a better environment. Does this mean that we do not have the option off achieving anything better then the system we have now? We have all the luxuries and doesn't that mean that we have the best way of life? We can drive cars instead of walking, we can watch movies and TV instead of thinking but is that really good or is it simply a self-propelling system that doesn't stop until a wrench is thrown in? The last wave of rebellious behavior dates to the hippies, which were the rebells they fought the system but ultimately became part of the system, mending their beliefs to what was needed to life comfortably again. Is a comfortable life all it takes to dissuade all the rebells that this society claims to have?

Games and violance

Todays games have often been criticized for being to violent and thus being unsuitable for children and/or Teenagers. However is it the games fault?
The question is of course should a game be violent? Now some games that are supposed to represent certain aspects of life such as violence are often criticized for making killing seem to nice and simple other games which represent such things more accurately are accused off being to violent thus disqualifying automatically. Now many say games and entertainment should not be violent yet most of our entertainment and world is most violent we just continue to fight war and consider weapons to be our most lucrative industry.

BBC Article

Here are some possible replies of the Gamer world which come from the heart.

BF2...MINE


BF2 Gun Sound Music Video


BF2 Teh Pwn3d life


(Of course there is the video label link on the left side here)

World of Warcraft - Commercial - Toyota Tacoma


Not Quite Barbie ( World of Warcraft )(NOT RATED Watching is your own issue)

(Yes a social statement to finish off.)

Red Planet Blues


Civil Protection - Episode 1: Friday


The End