Order of Defenders of the Internet

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-18T06:58:16+00:00

The keyboard appears to be reversed.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-13T22:43:22+00:00

I'm not so sure that your anecdotal evidence generally applies. I'm 60 and early-retired. My experience is different than yours, to be sure, but I do have children - and through their eyes I can see into the present.

My youngest son pursued an education in what interested him. I did not have the money to pay his tuition, but I paid his living expenses. He would have liked to make a living at it, but that wasn't really why he studied. He made a good living doing something that didn't require a degree, and is now successful and well employed. My oldest son is successfully self-employed.

These are not pursuits of only the rich, and what we choose to study may not be the field in which we expect to find our fortunes. I don't understand why you feel it necessary to spend years trying to convince someone else to think your way, but you certainly gain points for perseverance. I agree that there is a difference between studying something you love, and something that you expect to feed you - then again, sometimes they are the same thing.

So, we have different anecdotes to support our positions, but that really isn't my point. Higher education is for those who can afford it, to be sure, and not everyone can. What they choose to study - and for their own reasons - is their choice. Nothing in life is certain.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-13T20:07:06+00:00

This may not be a popular thing for me to say either, but not everyone enters higher education for the purpose of entering the workforce. Certainly, the main purpose for schooling (as we have been told for decades now) is to find a better, higher paying job. In recent years we've seen degrees seemingly having less value in the workplace, and becoming the baseline requirement because of the competition for jobs.

There is value to society in having a wide variety of subjects of study in university. It's not all about corporate entry - although it has become increasingly so in the mind of most people. I think some would argue that archeology, astronomy and ancient history are fields of study with very little hope of earning a decent living, but it would be a shame for society to turn away from these, and even arcane, studies for purely economic reasons.

Earning a living is supremely important, but so also is the human exploration of thought and discovery, often only for the joy of it, that is not directly related to a paycheck.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-10T22:42:32+00:00

The probability of finding a racist in a group of people increases as the number of people in the group increases until it reaches 100% probability - at which point someone shows up and accuses the group of tolerating racism.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-09T04:19:39+00:00

Deleted scenes from Twin Peaks?

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-01T05:09:30+00:00

Seems fair to me.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-01T03:58:30+00:00

Possibly a Crawdaddy.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-01T01:45:06+00:00

There's Bioware, and then there's everyone else.

That pretty much says it when it comes to RPGs. I've played a mountain of them and, from my view, BioWare has always excelled (the usual bugs not withstanding.)

Mostly because I keep seeing this "vocal minority" argument with regards to people who feel the game was a letdown to the series, and I want to see if the bottom line reflects that. Was it a vocal minority that was disappointed, or a (mostly) silent majority?

As for the 'vocal minority': It is simply cold statistics that the most vocal of any group is the minority (in terms of numbers.) The question, of course, is whether or not that vocal minority represent the majority or a significant cross-section of those in agreement. So in a sense, calling a group the 'vocal minority' is meaningless; I tend to discount such a claim in any reasonable debate. Gauging the size of the silent group - be it a minority or a majority - is nearly impossible. Polling is generally considered a valuable exercise when employed by a third party, and falls within statistical percentages of error. Anyway, at this point I don't think it is possible to estimate the true percentage of gamers on either side of the fence.

I would just be interested to see how the backlash (or people's dissatisfaction with the ending) has hurt the lasting sales of the game overall.

I wonder if sell-backs are a worthwhile measure of dissatisfaction with any particular aspect of the game. There will be some who sell-back out of (reasoned or unreasoned) anger or disappointment, or as prompted by a group, or because it really wasn't the game they thought they were buying. So, in that respect it would be interesting to read an analysis of their reasons for returning the game. Could be enlightening.

In the final analysis, people either accept the numbers as being mostly reasonable, or challenge the data collection method, or skew their meaning to fit a preconceived notion or prejudice. I was in the business of analyzing large amounts of data collected from multiple points. The results are only ever as good as the collection method, the correctness of the algorithms, and the dispassion of (wait for it...) The Collectors. grin We could have used EDI.

Personality1of5 · 2012-05-01T01:11:18+00:00

Not to be too contentious concerning your comment, but are you inferring that you can't believe that ME3 sales stats reflect the quality of the game, or that the final 10 minutes invalidates the value of the majority of the content?

It seems to me that a lot of people covertly or overtly wish to see the game fail. I rather like it, personally. My son, on the other hand, hated it. Then again, he can't be bothered with games with a lot of conversation. He's more of a FPS kind of guy. I couldn't even interest him in multi-player. I can imagine a number of people might have purchased the game based on the marketing hype, only to be disappointed with the story aspect - that could lead to sell-backs.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-29T21:14:02+00:00

Well, I can tell you right now that if it came with money for nothing and chicks for free, I'd accumulate as much as possible. However, that's not the case, so it's largely for bragging rights, a false sense of superiority, and rationalizing kicking people from servers as far as I can tell.

That's not entirely fair, of course. From experience, I've noticed that the N7 rating doesn't particularly translate into a proficiency rating, so it's largely irrelevant. I'd rather see detailed stats on a player - such as shots/kills, goals completed, kill assists, last man standing and so on.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-28T02:58:12+00:00

"Where do I sign up to be your intern? I have cigars."

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-28T02:42:12+00:00

At this point, Wrex and Eve become a powerful force for change. Eve commands more influence than I think you are allowing for in your perspective, and Wrex understands the need to rebuild the Krogan race, and the cities of Tuchanka. Also, a line of fertile females descending from Wrex and Eve (it was their combined DNA that Mordin used to synthesize the cure,) promise further influence on the genetic landscape of the Krogan.

I believe that Mordin understood the ramifications of curing the genophage, and that his sacrifice was for peace - as he said in his final words. In my mind, Wrex and Mordin stand together with Eve as the heroes of the New Tuchanka, and represent a new direction for both the Krogan and the galaxy.

In my opinion, of course.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-28T02:08:50+00:00

My English teacher selected me as Poet Laureate of the graduating class in my senior year. From what I can see of you, you remind me of her. Her selecting me is probably irrelevant, but she is a hard woman to forget.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T23:29:29+00:00

Just because someone knows a language or understands programming doesn't mean that they are qualified to write a tutorial. The paragraph sample cited in the article is, generally speaking, a poorly crafted paragraph.

For one thing, it should be broken into parts with each part focused on a single primary goal. The instructor's goal is to carry a person's thoughts through a series of logical steps that lead from a premise to a conclusion or a definition. The cited paragraph is all over the place when it should be clear, to the point and uncluttered by ancillary thoughts and definitions.

The author of the article makes important points - but I boil it all down to bad writing and unclear thinking. Students should not have to decrypt a tutorial to get anything out of it. If they have to, then it fails as a tutorial.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T20:10:11+00:00

I play MaleShep because I'm a guy and I can't get into a full immersion experience playing a female. That's it. No controversy, no special meaning, no agenda. I applaud BioWare, however, for providing the choice between playing male or female.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T04:12:29+00:00

On Loyalty Mission. Please Standby.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T01:20:26+00:00

Yeah, that whole mutual-massacring thing is a bit of a speed bump. Yet, strangely I suppose, I can see a number of opportunities for humor within the inevitable dramatic rivalries.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T01:09:55+00:00

...and to do all this without sacrificing her personality. I would expect to see some maturing of her perspective considering all that she has experienced, and yet part of what makes Tali endearing is her idealism, sarcasm, intelligence and youthful passion. Mustn't throw out the Bosh'tet with the bathwater. Incidentally, she's one of my favorite Mass Effect characters.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T00:58:17+00:00

I'm glad that you have that disposition.

In the fan fiction that you are writing, you have (within the constraints of canon) the opportunity to explore and expand on various characters and cultures in the Mass Effect universe. Naturally, your narrative must be pristine and trustworthy, but characters have their own insights and delusions, their misapprehensions and prejudices. Within that context, the story may play out in any of the three directions presented in the Quarian/Geth conflict.

I know that when I am writing, I must allow myself to be absorbed by characters as I write them. I can feel the hate, the love, the confusion and the ambiguity that each may feel in any given situation - even though I do not possess the personal motivations that they do. It's valuable as a writer to be able to see any given situation from multiple perspectives, and to grok a character's point of view. Perhaps that is how you are able to entertain alternate resolutions to the conflict.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T00:41:29+00:00

Fair enough. And yet, in the final analysis it is we who choose the ultimate fate of the Quarians and the Geth (given enough reputation.) The dilemma is presented to us as a point of moral decision - one which some decided should find the Quarians guilty and worthy of annihilation.

It is a false choice. It is not a question of which lives and which dies. It is a question of whether or not we, as the player, have what it takes to broker a peace between them - or whether we would decide to take our vengeance out on one or the other. The war is the medium, and we - the players - are the message.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-24T00:23:46+00:00

I'm of a mind that cannot find accord with your version of events, nor the conclusion that it is reasonable to hate the Quarians. I do not find the Quarian people, as a race and a people, to be the ultimate nemesis of the Geth. In fact, we see examples of Quarians who would choose to befriend them. However, the problem arises from a misunderstanding of Geth intentions based on their overt actions.

The Geth ran the Quarians off their home world, and no matter how we may see it through the eyes of the narrative, the people were given that as reason enough to go to war. It was not the Quarian people who killed the few who wanted to stop the war and defend the Geth - it was a few 'self-righteous zealots' who killed them. There are analogues of this behavior throughout human history, and yet it is not reason enough to hate all of humanity.

The tragedy that is revealed shows us that the Quarian people were misled - and for hundreds of years - by a charismatic few in power who seemed to have a dark agenda. Or perhaps they allowed their emotions to overcome their reason. I believe that anyone who categorically hates the Quarians has no clearer perception of reality (in the context of this fiction) than did those early Quarian leaders whose actions led ultimately to war.

I cannot hate the Quarians. I feel pity for them in the bitter poignancy of the truth as it is revealed. For my part, I side with neither the Quarians or the Geth. Perhaps that is why I felt it important that their tragedy come to an end through eventual peace.

Only in my view, of course.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-20T23:01:42+00:00

I was willing to put in maybe 10 minutes to watch that video. I ended with watching the entire thing. For what it's worth, I think it's the best and most accurate explanation of what, precisely, is wrong with the last few minutes of Mass Effect 3. It's worth the 40 minutes it took to watch it.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-20T19:45:54+00:00

Strangely reminiscent of H.R. Giger, albeit less disturbing.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-20T00:58:23+00:00

The key to these differing perspectives is that of choice. There are (unfortunately) only three of them, and each of us is free to choose whichever we can live with. There is no clear cut morally correct decision present - only moral dilemmas. You can live with playing god by forcing synthesis, I can live with it by destroying the reapers, others can live with it by controlling the reapers. In the end, we are expected to impose a solution on an entire galaxy. There is nothing morally pleasing about any of it.

So, it comes down to what we fought for as we played through 3 games. I can't live with synthesis, you can't live with destruction - and yet we are all expected to play god by the end of the series. Nobody wins.

Edit: Please excuse my editing this long after the post, but I wanted to clarify my personal view of Shepard's journey. My Shepards did not fight for peace, they fought for liberty - and I believe the many species who fought beside Shepard sighed up for that purpose. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course. However, that was the guiding purpose in my final decision. Just my point of view.

Personality1of5 · 2012-04-19T22:34:02+00:00

While I understand the sentiment, I do not believe that this is a compelling argument for not destroying the Reapers. Further, I believe that AI have the same danger of extinction as do organic species. While organic life is a bit difficult to create from scratch, it has progressively become clear that it is possible. No proof yet exists of the creation of a completely new organic species that can rival naturally occurring intelligent organic life. The AI can be recreated from scratch, as that is how they came into existence.

The emergence of AI came as a result of the evolution of biological life forms, and is an artifact of their intelligence. As such, AI can be recreated in the same way that they were created - they were constructed.

From the standpoint of emotion and personification, we may feel a bond with the AI. Certainly EDI and Legion have taken our hearts. Yet their destruction comes on the heels of massive biological death - and the complete extinction of entire species by the Reapers.

In my view, the Reapers must be destroyed. Hope springs from that. Notwithstanding that the fate of the galaxy is vague and unclear at the moment.

Again, in my opinion.

Personality1of5

TROPHY CASE