China criticizes the US for its human rights record

Link: People's Daily Online

No comment, but read it if you're interested. The ironies are flooding the gates and drowning us spectators.

Language Counts: Mingjing zhishui

Pronunciation: Ming jing zhr shway / meh kyaw-aw shi swee

Hanyu Pinyin: Mingjing zhishui

Romaji: Meikyoushisui

Meaning: Clear mirror, still water; describing a state of mind. See also this entry.

Origin: Zhuangzi, Chinese philosopher

--Character analysis--

Ming:
n.
1. name of dynasty, i.e. Ming Dynasty
2. Clearness
3. Light; brightness

v.
To understand; as in "mingbai", to understand

Adj./adv.
1. Open
2. Clear, lucid
3. Bright
4. Understanding, perceptive; as in "congming", clever

Jing:
n.
1. Mirror
2. Glass

Zhi:
n.
Behaviour, demeanour

v.
1. To stop, halt, desist

adj./adv.
1. Still; as in "zhishui", still water

Shui:
n.
1. Water
2. Liquid, juice

adj./adv.
Watery, water-like

Blogging ain't easy

My access to blogging tools is now limited because of annoyances in the house, and I'll be back in a while (say, two or three days), after my anxiety subsides.

Does absolute power corrupt absolutely?

The famous saying goes like this: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But is it true? It seems true to some degree. People with power do have a tendency to become quite corrupt. Monarchs and dictators throughout history have shown themselves to be corrupt, cheating the people and going to great lengths to ensure more personal gains.

I don't believe power itself is the source of corruption. I think it is the desire for power that brings about corruption. Naturally, if people desires something, they want to keep what they already have and then grasp for more till they overflow. I think that's the essence of this corruption. Greedy officials may abuse their position and appropriate funds for themselves. This is the desire for power in action. Having more money than is needed elevates their position in relation to the others, and that is exactly what power is.

For people with a lot of power, for example dictators, it works similarly. I was at church service today, and the pastor spoke about the Roman emperor Nero. According to the sermon, Nero wants to expand his palace, but many houses are in the way, so he sets fire to and burns down a large portion of Rome (c.f. Great Fire of Rome). Now, whether the real-life Nero was responsible is a controversial subject, but in the end, Christians, then a minor and obscure group, were blamed for the fire and subsequently brutally dealt with. Now let's suspend disbelief for a moment; I'm going to look at what Nero has done and what kind of power he has, assuming that the pastor's story was 100% accurate.

In this scenario, Nero probably can be said to have absolute power. After all, he is the emperor, and he burns down the capital city of the empire for his own gains and gets away with it. But wait a moment; the fire is started to clear the way for Neropolis and is eventually blamed on the Christian scapegoats. Why would Nero do that? If he has absolute power, why does he not just order the inhabitants of the houses to move out? Or better yet, why not just burn them down and admit he's done it? Nero probably is afraid of repercussions, which would in turn threaten his reputation, credibility, and power. Furthermore, why does Nero want a bigger palace and a city named after him? Those are symbols of power, and isn't he already in power -- absolute power?

The real-life Nero had it a lot worse. Rumours of him gloating over the city's destruction were partly started by his political enemies, and Nero's credibility almost completely fell apart. Throughout his life, numerous attempts to overthrow him were made, and in the end he did get deposed and was forced to commit suicide.

So perhaps what we call absolute power isn't really absolute at all. It's often really fragile, in fact, because desire for power drives corrupt sociopaths to backstab those they perceive to be in greater positions of power. Even great power flinches and falls apart, and the perception of weakness drives corruption, which is really an active and illicit pursuit of power. It is what makes tyrants persecute minority groups and dissenters. But all that does not make absolute power, nor does it mean absolute power corrupts absolutely. Absolute power must by definition be absolute. It must be total, and so unbounded that nothing can threaten it; but has something like that ever existed?

If someone has absolute power, why would they do anything to eliminate (potential) opposition? If opposition can shatter this power, then the power is obviously not quite absolute. Look at the Combine government from Half-Life 2, for example. The sort of oppression they lay upon the people is perhaps greater than any tyrant could do, and yet a hopeless rebellion still manages to destroy it. (Alright, I guess it's probably unfair of me to use a fictional event as an example)

Corruption is the desire for power. If there is no more power to be had and no opposition to challenge, then why would there be any corruption? And so, what kind of power is absolute and humanly possible?

My last question of the day is, do you think stupid people like me should turn off our brains and stop thinking?

You know what's annoying?

There's a site that hangs its ugly banners everywhere; it's a site that tries to push a hateful agenda. Worst of all, though, the site uses flashy graphics for absolutely no reason. Like, flashy enough to cause spasms for some viewers, and annoying enough to lead me to the conclusion that the webmaster is an Internet idiot.

And it gets even more annoying when I get ready to blog this but notice that they took down the flashy graphics. And then, just as I scrap the idea, I realize that the graphics never were taken down, a fact which in the end convinces me that I'm a bigger idiot.

Very annoying.

Freedom Thought: Things

The Internet is a place where people get terribly blunt and offensive, under the guise of discussion, and it's a place which even the least coherent of people can access with relative anonymity.

So to start off the first Freedom Thought entry, I will talk about how fallacies are quickly being introduced into mainstream politics, and what I think is the best way to kick them out of the game.

The most commonly used fallacies on the Internet are the slippery slope and the straw man arguments, often mixed with other fallacies. Examples illustrate better than explanations, so here goes:

1) "Those liberals and Euro-commies want to let homosexuals marry. What's next, people marrying their dogs? The very moral fabric of the nation would collapse and civilization would be destroyed."

2) "Getting rid of the death penalty? No way. You want to let those bloodthirsty criminals run amuck and shoot up everything as they please without consequences?"

3) "Like I said, you neocommunists are always out to destroy the Christian faith. Why, last week a judge just banned the Ten Commandments!"

Sometimes, people try to counter these fallacies by pointing them out, but unfortunately, not everyone has the knowledge to recognize what is wrong with these arguments, and not everyone is intelligent or knowledgeable enough to see why they are wrong. Thus, the fallacies continue to plague the Internet.

In response, I think there's a radically better way. Let's say, we get rid of all restrictions on freedom by dissolving civilization, and return the word to its rightful place, where its definition cannot be polluted by tyrants ever again. Superfluous or paradoxical phrases such as "freedom to be ruled", "freedom to vote", "freedom of expression", or "freedom to marry" will no longer be uttered. Just an idea.

Then again, don't people ever find it ridiculous that the 'freedoms' people have are outlined, as if restriction were the norm and freedom were the exception? Let me illustrate this point by pointing to the Creative Commons deed I use, which start off saying "You are free to ..." and then "[under] the following conditions". Isn't it amazing that people claim they live in free societies, and yet coexist with these documents that specifically tell you what freedoms you have and under what conditions? (Creative Commons, furthermore, is quite 'free' compared to some copyleft movements.)

Of course, people may say, "My freedom ends as soon as it starts to violate other people's freedom." Yes, but how far does those people's freedom go? Freedom to start a corporation: check. Freedom to take and own more land than is needed: check. Freedom to be treated as a single entity: check. Freedom to expand to a microstate: check. Freedom to restrict other people's freedom while they are on or using your properties, which amount to about 20% of a city: check. Freedom to sponsor the government and be granted rights to restrict freedom: check. Freedom to become a second government: check. Freedom to rule the world: check.

If you're using a Windows operating system, try to find your EULA -- End-User Licence Agreement -- a contract which pretty much amounts to the last paragraph; your freedom while using Microsoft intellectual property is dictated by its terms. Chances are you have never read it or been alerted to its existence, and the OS was loaded on your machine by someone else when you bought your computer. Here's one example for Windows XP Home Edition.

Yes, I know most companies are very different from Microsoft, but abuse of the concept of property is the norm, not the exception. Lengthy EULAs and restrictive clauses are applied almost to everything. At what point do we say we are free? Under a feudal lord, serfs were certainly free to do everything the lord allowed them to do. Maybe the right to freedom somehow come from the government, or a flag, or the blood of martyrs, and maybe this fact gives them justification for taking back the right and privatizing it, i.e. selling it to corporations, as they see fit. Is that so?

Finally, I'm aware that saying anything suggestive about Microsoft is a terrible offence, and the fury of the Microsoft Defenders' Association will soon rain upon me; so in my typical social-phobic moment, I will speak no more of this, end today's entry, and hide in shame.

Update: Blogger went down a while ago, and as a result I didn't quite complete this post.

What is art, and what is not art

I just read an interesting article which pointed out this interesting question: what is art, and what is not art? We are now living in a world where technological and economic advances have made it possible for various types of art to be produced by a large number of people, with a potential audience that is larger than ever.

What is art: I think I'll start off by listing the definitions. Its other meanings excluded, (fine) art generally refers to things that have been created or rearranged and as a result stimulate and appeal to human senses. Of course, this is an extremely vague definition that was produced deliberately to include some art that is often not recognizable as such.

For example, is it art when an elephant's feet are used as brushes to produce seemingly random patterns? Is it art when people cut out words and pictures from the newspaper and randomly assemble them in some way, for example using a computer program? Is it art when an artist doodles randomly in frustration and later says the work symbolizes his or her past suffering? And is a collection of random sound recordings art? I'll further narrow the question now: is digitally-produced music art? Is a computer game a piece of art?

The question doesn't even have to involve new approaches. Can free-verse poems with no rhythm or rhyme whatsoever be considered art? (many poets have objected to this form, or lack thereof) What about the painting with only three stripes on it that sold for millions of dollars? Is poetry written in Klingon art? What about poetry in Esperanto? And what about total gibberish that rhymes and sounds pleasing when recited?

Was Alexander Pope, an 18th-century English poet who wrote essays in rhyming couplets, an artist? Can a total hack be an artist? Are overpaid singers artists?

Oy, too many questions from me. This might be a little too inflammatory, but I'm very curious, because I write stuff that my critical self doesn't fully consider to be art. But, does it matter if the artist in question is confident?

Okay, that's enough questions from me. I want to mention an idea I have. Perhaps there is no real definition, and what gets to be considered art is perhaps decided on by group mentality and elite groups. For instance, perhaps Shakespeare wasn't that much greater than, say, John Keats, but his place in the field of poetry might have been ensured more by constant reinforcement from the elite, mainstream academia, and popular assumption than pure mastery and artistry (not my opinion, by the way -- just an example).

I guess this requires more thought than a little arbitrary test run by ABC News or a series of unrelated questions. But I'm running out of time here, so I'll be back tomorrow.

A weekly feature kind of thing

I'm thinking about doing a weekly feature on this journal -- a theme of sorts for certain days of the week that keeps myself from writing randomly every day but is interesting enough to merit its existence. I know some bloggers do that sort of thing, and I think it's much better than keeping everything disorganized and jumping from topic to topic all the time.

Since I don't have that many regular readers, it's probably futile to ask for suggestions here, but I'm going to list a few possibilities I can think of.

1) Toonie Tuesdays -- I mail out $2 coins to every person that leaves a comment .... no, that wouldn't do at all.

2) Monster Mondays -- I can focus on anxiety as a topic, as Mondays tend to be pretty stressful for people. I either share my past experiences or just write on something relevant. I've been neglecting that lately, so this might help me focus.

3) Moji Mondays -- I pick out an interesting word, character, or phrase from a language I know and do a feature every Monday. I love language-related stuff, and this would give me an excuse to ramble. Moji is Japanese for written words, but it doesn't have to be Japanese, and I picked it only for the alliteration. I can change it if I think of something else.

4) Social anxiety quotations of the week (c.f. this) -- A little clunky, but this makes sure I don't deviate too much from the central theme of the journal. I post five to ten quotations that either describe truths regarding social anxiety disorder when taken out of context or are edited and twisted by myself to do that.

There aren't too many to choose from (brain kind of slow today), so I may end up doing all of them actually. Well, except Toonie Tuesdays.

The Making of a Piece of Nonsense

As I've mentioned repeatedly, I wrote a few satirical articles on Japanese topics on Uncyclopedia. Now, many Anglophones and westerners probably won't catch the jokes, and the average Japanese-speaker probably won't catch things that pertain specifically to North American culture either. So, at the risk of ruining everything and looking like a fool, I'm going to provide clues on Oda Nobunaga so everyone can understand why I wrote what I wrote.

1) Oda Nobunaga is one of the most well-known Japanese daimyō from the Sengoku period in the 16th century. He was a revolutionary warlord with many modern ideas that defied the old order, and his struggles lay the foundation to Japan's unification. Oda was eventually betrayed and forced to commit suicide by a subordinate general, just when his clan had central Japan firmly under control and was pushing west and east. Another capable general of Oda, Hashiba (Toyotomi) Hideyoshi took over Oda's legacy, sweeping aside opposition within the clan, and managed to unify all of Japan. After his death, his legacy was also taken over, by Tokugawa Ieyasu, who shattered Toyotomi's loyalist forces at the Battle of Sekigahara and destroyed the frail Toyotomi clan, becoming shogun and ruler of Japan. The Tokugawa Shogunate then restored order and ruled Japan for two centuries. In the article, the Japanese name for Oda in brackets in fact says "Tokugawa Ieyasu". The Latin name simply satirized the stereotypical names of Roman emperors.

2) Jimmu-Tennō, also Emperor Jimmu, was the legendary founder of the Japanese imperial court. There is also a slight satirical reference to some J-RPGs (Japanese roleplaying games) that are based on similar themes.

3) Oda Nobunaga was not exactly a benevolent daimyō. As he grew older and the resistance to his clan stronger, he became more ruthless and less diplomatic. Stereotypically, Oda is often depicted in pop culture as a devilish tyrant who had demonic powers at his proposal (c.f. Onimusha and Flame of Recca, or Rekka-no-hono in Japanese). His most notorious act was the destruction of Mt. Hiei, a buddhist stronghold and a cultural symbol of Japan in his days.

4) Oda actually came from the Owari province (now Aichi Prefecture). The Takeda clan, one of Oda's fiercest rivals, was from Kai. Kai (Yamanashi Prefecture) is not part of northern Japan.

5) Imagawa Yoshimoto (and in brackets it says Takeda Shingen) was a very powerful daimyō who had the provinces of Suruga, Tōtōmi, (Shizuoka Prefecture) and Migawa (Aichi Pref.) under his control. He tried to attack Owari, but was slain by Oda's surprise attack -- a victory that marked Oda's rise to national prominence.

6) A kensei is literally a sword-saint. In Japanese, it usually refers to great swordsmen who travelled around the country like ascetic monks. This concept has been popularized in roleplaying games such as Dungeons and Dragons, becoming an inaccurate stereotype much like the Chinese monk (In D&D, monks are described as martial artists that fight for order and are capable of achieving godlike power, despite the fact that monks everywhere are primarily cloistered men striving for spirituality). The article and the kensei article satirize this fad, as well as fallacious forms of Japanese words (e.g. ninjas, kensais, daikatanas).

7) Ganryū-jima is a small island in western Japan, where the legendary duel between the kensei Sasaki Kojirō Ganryū and Miyamoto Musashi took place. Sasaki was defeated and slain.

8) Nauisu is a transliteration of the Latin word navis, which means ship.

9) Ōatakebune is said to be the world's first ironclad warship, commissioned by Oda Nobunaga. It is something of a legend, again popularized in literature and pop culture.

10) The Osaka Castle was not built in Nobunaga's lifetime. Nobunaga's main castle of residence was Gifu Castle, and later Azuchi Castle, which was burnt down after his death. The Osaka Castle was built by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Also, Osaka is nowhere near Mt. Fuji.

11) Luis Frois was Portuguese, not English; he was a Jesuit, not a Jew.

12) Nobunaga Hōimō literally means Net Surrounding Nobunaga. It's the name to a turbulent period in Nobunaga's career, at which point he was surrounded by a hostile alliance working with the last shogun, Ashigaka Yoshiaki, against the Oda clan.

13) Sakai's merchants did not dare oppose Nobunaga. Konami has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

14) Oda Nobunaga sent the last Ashigaka shogun into exile, but never took the title for himself. He didn't abolish the imperial court, either.

15) Oda Nobunaga never left Japan, although the possibility of Oda creating a colonial empire had been explored in literature. As Toyotomi Hideyoshi had tried to invade Korea, this is perhaps not as farfetched as it would seem.

16) Oda Nobunaga is said to have committed suicide at Honnō-ji in Kyoto when his traitorous vassal, Akechi Mitsuhide surrounded the temple with an army. However, his corpse was never discovered, and the possibility that Oda escaped or that he somehow survived through supernatural means remains a much-explored theme in literature and pop culture.

When the movie screams "Watch me!"

Today, I finally fired up my media player, and I realized I have a rather unhealthy tendency to procrastinate.

No, of course, I'm not talking about work, or studies, or anything that you might reasonable postpone for a short while. And I'm not talking about "a short while" either.

For example, when I acquire a novel or a DVD, I sometimes just promptly forget about its existence for a year and sometimes longer.

Example 1)
I got the DVD for Fellowship of the Ring as soon as it came out, and then sat on it for so long that by the time I started and finished watching (took only one night) the movies, the extended version was already out. I have nothing against Peter Jackson or Tolkien, or any of the actors; I just didn't feel like watching. I got nagged at for two years for that, too.

Example 2)
I bought a certain D&D novel five years ago. I still haven't had a chance to read past page 1, even though I'm sort of an avid reader.

Example 3)
I obtained a full anime series back in late 2004. I'm still sitting on episode five (out of fifty-two), and I got that far because someone was very insistent. :)

I sometimes go "aaaaargh" when it becomes clear that one of these dreaded activities (e.g. watching The Lord of the Rings) is the only alternative to being bored to death. And of course, in the end I don't do it but accept my boredom.

Is this normal? I don't know if it's normal. I don't have a normal model to compare to, but it's something worth taking note of.

stillwaters goes international

Well, not exactly me, but my nonsensical, satirical articles (ow, that's a mouthful) on Japanese history and other things have attracted some attention from a famous Japanese blogger, Mr. Matsunaga, who has kindly translated some of those articles for which I was 99.99% responsible into Japanese.

Not much to say about all this, but I'm quite thrilled that there actually are people who understand and appreciate (or despise enough to have translated them for the whole wide Japanese-speaking world to ridicule) the multicultural jokes I've put in the articles. Kudos to Mr. Matsunaga for the oomph and the execellent work.

The Political Compass and my results

The Political Compass is a new way of categorizing yourself in political terms, and it expands the traditional one-dimensional political spectrum to better distinguish the difference between economic and social concerns. Unlike most political tests online, this is not an amateurish personality quiz, but is purported to be a political analysis tool.

Remember to take the test first and then read the FAQs, if you're interested.



Edit: Updated September 4, 2007.

Browser disclaimer

Viewers may notice that the text to the left side column now says, "This page is best viewed at a screen resolution of 1024x768 or above with a modern browser that isn't Internet Explorer." They may not, if they are using Internet Explorer, which has again decided that my template should not be loaded properly.

It's not that I'm actively boycotting IE or Microsoft. I already refrain from using their products whenever I can. Apart from Windows itself, MS Paint, and Notepad, I don't use Microsoft programs. They're clunky, buggy, and resource-hogging. But for all that, I try not to inconvenience people with alternatives that require too much effort on their part.

But Internet Explorer is a major pain in the butt, and that's not just a cliché.

I don't actually know any CSS and I know very little HTML, as I previously mentioned, so perhaps the template which I made using a purely trial-and-error approach is in fact laden with misuses of the two scripting languages. It's probably true that my template is not fully optimized for all browsers, and by virtue of its existence it may be committing the heinous crime of propagating poor webpage designs.

But my experiences and anecdotal evidence seem to suggest that IE is at least partially at fault here. It's a well-documented fact that IE is one of the few modern browsers that actually refuse to conform to web standards, and it seems to have its own independent interpretation of CSS, which I suspect is why my page looks so messed up with IE. I've already tweaked my template many times in vain attempts to circumvent IE's bugs, because I know the majority of web users out there still haven't bothered to switch, and my stats show me that a minority of my visitors still use IE 5.0 (which is such an ancient piece of software that there's nothing that can be done on my end to cater to it).

Today, for some reason, I launched my blog with IE, and to my chagrin the browser decided to cut off my two side bars almost completely; and my middle column was also resized, relocated, realigned, or just purely messed up in an almost random fashion. I had to get my template open and suffer a headache from trying to read scripting languages that I don't really understand. So I hit the preview button before I made any changes just to be sure -- and lo and behold IE loaded the page again with different results. The side bars were partially cut off, the alignment was way off, and CSS markups were selectively ignored in the middle column.

Well, that marked the end of my support for IE. So far, I've received feedback from viewers that the page looked fine on Safari, Opera, and Konqueror. I personally use Mozilla Firefox, and so that means at least four browsers are merciful enough not to butcher my template. As much as I fear potentially frustrating IE users and making them mad enough to never come back to this page, I must announce that support for IE has been dropped completely. You are recommended to use Mozilla Firefox, an alternative browser that does not suck as badly as IE.

The Highway

The following chunk of text is supposed to be a poem.
--stillwaters


The Highway is a sign in our oppressed and gloomy world
Of hope and wealth and universal truth, no more enchained
Around the whims of despots and the lords and kings of old.
Paved with the blood of pioneers and toils of travellers,
The Highway stretches over kingdoms, through each town and port,
And with each dawning day extends toward more lands enslaved.
It penetrates the deepest walls that crumble down, to reach
Imprisoned peoples trapped in poisoned minds and blinded eyes,
And forces down the forts and towers clothed in bricks of steel,
Where hopeless tyrants soon deliver their last speech and rot
In thrones made of decaying bones and palaces of dust;
Their plundered wealth will be returned to humankind in full;
Their illegitimate regime will fade in history.
So marching on the Road, the people will break free and live
For what the Highway symbolizes: hope, and wealth, and truth.
Old mounts may rain debris to split the Highway into two;
The ancient tree may block the Road with its own dying roots
And, even with the final breath of tyranny, its trunk;
But never will the Highway stop its spread of liberty,
As well as hope, and wealth, and knowledge for humanity.
The Highway moves toward horizons blue, red, black and grey,
And so shall these be our eternal colours for the Road,
For which the pioneers fought to keep open, sprawling free,
And always reaching out with hope and wealth and truth for all.

Blog name

I've been staring at my blog for a few days and wondering about the name. I realized that "stillwaters -- blog" seemed terribly bland and sounds just like a casual personal journal, so I tried to come up with an alternative that expresses a similar concept. I wanted a name that, you know, doesn't sound terribly melodramatic but still special enough to sum up the idea behind this blog.

So I came up with "the silent torrent". I guess it's a little odd, and I personally don't like the word "torrent". It just seems too rough and forceful.

I think I'll use "Silent and Reticent".

Clearing the Pollution

Today's that special day
no reason
no logic
no mangled articulateness.
Have I
bastardized my own
world, when there is none
when none is supposed to
no one should have
have I let **** in
I
know
No I don't.
Where am I g
I know
No I don't.

Am desperate
must find a new place
new refuge
my world's been
polluted
the air's polluted itself
the water's polluted itself
and the world's polluted itself
must
desperately flee
and find new refuge
and where
I know
No I don't.

Show me what
Show the
to me,g ive me
the medicine
I know
NO I DON't.

Undo my world
I must
undo my world
the impure world
once was mine but no longer
it's polluted
has polluted itself
or been polluted
must be undone
light the Great Fire
with
I know
No I don't.

Fire's started and pour the
pour more of that
where is th
GiVe meit now
YOu or some
else
stop fgihtign
I know
No I don't.

Today's that special day
no reason
no failure
no mangled corpses tied up
hanging next to the donkey
whose hooves and al
with just that heavy kick
and...
show me how to ****
You know
and I don't.

The sun departing
how depressing
so I hold up
it the *****
lived a life already
and wherelse togo
to load and unload
upon the polluted world
I know
No I don't.

Take away
it away it take
from I and my
take away it from I
and show
show me that
which I can't have
which doesn't
and I can't ****
I know
No I don't.

Yesterday was that special day
no emotions
no blood
two mangled corpses tied up
hanging next to the horse
whose hooves and all I had devoured
with nothing left
but a tiny little
puddle of *****
done existing
I know
No I don't.

Oh how many will I take
how many have I left,
and how much of ***** on me
Tomorrow is that special day
no life
no laughter
no forced smile
I will cleanse
my own world
of intruders, every single one of
them that somehow
somehow got in
polluted my world
or were let in
by --
I know
No I don't.

City of Heroes

I generally don't like MMORPGs, because they're a business model with non-innovative trends, which I can't agree with. But I've heard many good things about this game called City of Heroes, and I think the concept behind it is pretty appealing to me. With very few replayable games to play these days, it's looking more and more interesting.

MMORPG is short for massively multiplayer online roleplaying game. Usually, they're really the same kind of roleplaying games as Diablo II, a model that is repetitive and action-oriented with a plot that has little relevance in the game (and hence no roleplaying to speak of) -- truly a misnomer. MMORPGs are usually subscription games. Players, in addition to buying the game itself, need to pay a monthly subscription fee to play the game on the company-run servers (private servers are rare, and are either illegal or impossible to build and maintain). Each server would usually host thousands of players at once, which makes the MMORPG truly massive.

MMORPGs tend to have treadmill gameplay and may encourage powerlevelling, which is a style of gameplay that focuses on repeating endless routines to achieve maximum mechanical usefulness at the expense of everything else. Because MMORPGs have no room for roleplaying, there is little practical reason (apart from aesthetics) to let a player character progress or act realistically. Given their repetitive nature, MMORPGs are in reality social games, forcing players to "party up" and carry out boring tasks together; the social aspect is the cohesive that keeps players coming back (endurable gameplay is important too, but apparently is not essential).

Therefore, you might be able to understand why I don't agree with these principles of the MMORPG niche. First, I believe when I'm paying a subscription fee, I should be getting enough new content to keep me interested. MMORPGs, on the other hand, force the players to pay just to continue with more of the same thing. It's also a well-established practice in the industry to release expansion packs periodically, which are not free and are sometimes required for continued support from the game maker. Finally, since the roleplaying element is rarely encouraged, let alone enforced, I can't really be bothered to invest time in a character that lives and travels in a dead and pointless "persistent world" that exists solely for the sake of gameplay. All the stupidity that pops up in Korea and elsewhere about people suing or physically hurting each other over in-game issues only serves to reinforce my cynicism.

Now back to City of Heroes -- it starts off with a somewhat refreshing premise. Unlike traditional MMORPGs, in which the player characters often begin their careers as weaklings that must kill snakes and rats (and risk being killed, no less) for days to achieve experience, City of Heroes is literally a city of superheroes. The player character starts off strong, at least in concept, and only gets even stronger. For example, superheroes that start their career picking on individual criminals and hapless thugs, eventually moving on to more sinister and resourceful criminal syndicates, and finally the supervillains behind them.

Modernistic and SF settings are usually rare in the MMORPG niche, and the graphics seem fine compared to other MMORPGs. It may be quite action-oriented, but that's to be expected in a game about superheroes.

Since I like superhero settings as seen in Freedom Force but dislike the lack of customization in that game, I'm finding this title quite promising. Unfortunately, I can't pay a subscription fee; it's too much of a drain on my resources (not to mention the fact that I don't have a credit card). Last I heard, they're offering a 14-day free trial via invitations. Well, it seems like quite a hassle for just fourteen days. Why don't they copy Anarchy Online, which offered one-year free trial periods? Too bad I didn't like that particular game.

Is it possible to be agoraphobic and claustrophobic at the same time?

I've been wondering about this question for a while now. Is it possible to be an agoraphobic and a claustrophobic at the same time? It's possible that I'm missing something fairly obvious, because I'm not really knowledgeable about what I'm discussing here, and maybe the answer is an outright yes. Still, I think I'm going to try to answer the question myself by pondering it out loud.

So here's the circumstance: I'm the classic example of a social phobic. my symptoms and fears are the kind that is frequently described in books about social anxiety disorder. The difference is that my fears are all quite intense and exaggerated. This has given me some agoraphobic tendencies.

For example, when I go out, for example, I try to walk along the wall to avoid being stimulated from all directions. I also tend to feel very awkward without a backpack or something heavy strapped to me in open spaces. A backpack to me feels somewhat like a shield, or a barrier, between me and everyone around me. It could give me a limited sense of security, that at least something is standing in the way between myself and the horrific open space. Also, I suspect the weight and the pressure distract me well from the stimulants that constantly assault me; a light backpack, on the contrary, doesn't do much to alleviate the stress and anxiety I feel in public places.

These days, I rarely go out anymore. Sometimes, like once a month, I do force myself to head outside to get some fresh air or to feel the presence of other human beings, lest I lose my sanity to isolation. For the most part, I stay in my room, which is rather small. To me, though, home, particularly my room, is my only sanctuary. When I'm outside, I long to return to my cozy, if somewhat depressing room.

Well, home is possibly the only place where I don't feel highly anxious. The level of anxiety can be fairly high as well in public washrooms, small offices, elevators, trains, and so on, whether or not people are around me. In public washrooms behind closed doors, for example, I can feel pretty uneasy. Fortunately, the symptoms are mild enough that I don't get avoidant too often.

Well, I guess the answer to my question is yes, and both phobias might be motivated by the same fear: the fear of being unable to escape. I can reason all I want, but I might just be misinterpreting the signs. At least I know how to think positively to some extent, about these two problems.

And what's the word for "fear of ghosts"?

Internet marketing is ridiculous

I'm sure every web surfer has come into some sort of marketing hype on the Internet at some point. I'm referring to small websites devoted to selling something, often books or packages that purportedly will give you all the information you'll ever need on some particular topic. They are often money-making schemes, although there are many exceptions that take similar forms. These sites usually give page upon page of information and testimonials to convince the viewers to purchase the item, and very often, they are quite emotionally appealing.

These sites give out enough information to sway the viewers, but usually remain vague about specifics. Occasionally, snippets from the actual content may be provided, and one or two concrete examples may be given; at times, entire chapters are given out "for free". Unfortunately, these "free samples" are just teasers that rarely provide any actual content. They're often introductory lessons that teach the viewers what they already know. So with everything taken into account, it's impossible to judge the quality of the items being advertised.

I don't know the actual statistics for the sales of these glamorous items, but the marketers that wrote those pages must have been copying each other like crazy.

Advertisement is quite an important part in today's capitalism. The fundamental reason to advertise is to get the word out to potential buyers, so that they at least mentally take note of the product's existence. But that's not enough. Marketers want people to buy the product. So they not only put up adverts, but they also lure web surfers into websites and promise to deliver the best service. Get-rich schemes, viral marketing, debt consolidation, alternative medicine, or even some legitimate-sounding businesses. These ads can look good, if they aren't just slammed into individual mailboxes.

But I'm going to side with the cynics on this one. The marketers probably overpromise and underdeliver. I'm going to use an example here. The last marketing hype I ran into was a book on winning lotteries, and the strategies according to the marketer apply everywhere. Here's where marketers always overpromise: they write vaguely and may implicitly or explicitly suggest that the product works worldwide. I'm sure there isn't an international lottery guild where lottery administrators worldwide meet and decide upon international standards. If there actually is an organization like that, then I'm sure plenty of local lotteries don't adhere to the standards.

Secondly, if the author has mastered the secrets to winning lotteries, why is he marketing the book openly? He could use the secret himself to get rich and charge money for private seminars if he wanted more. When the advert is released and visible on Google, I'm sure it'll attract enough attention from lottery administrators to make the product obsolete. What's so special about these nearly-guaranteed winning strategies (the particular advert I read promises an 80% chance of winning) that lottery administrators cannot circumvent? Why is there no concrete example? Maybe it's just an unscrupulous businessman bluffing?

Do I think adverts need to go through a government agency -- no, I don't think so. But something needs to be done about this profit-driven world.

A particularly bitter moment

I really do long for change, and I've always been looking for acceptance amongst various groups. I haven't succeeded yet, and I think it's probably a safe bet that I'm not going to find a new home in any human groups this decade. It's true that I'm a pessimist, but my thoughts are justified.

I'm not just looking for any kind of acceptance. I want to become part of the mainstream; I want to be accepted by most people, or just many people. I want people to see me for who I am and come back for more willingly; I don't want to advertise myself, put on a façade, and beg frantically for attention so that a handful of people might consider giving me a second glance. That's what I've always been doing and I've had quite enough of that throughout these years. I really hope to be able to proclaim one day that people will see me for who I am and decide that they want to see more of me; that I will no longer insult my own intelligence bugging random passers-by and hoping that they might stop long enough to find the pitiable clown behind the act interesting.

I recall that I used to frequent a bookstore. There was a person working there who my intuition told me would at the very least make a great acquaintance. This desire for acceptance kept me going back every time, despite the strong anxiety, and sometimes I would spend a long time standing behind a bookshelf, staring at them and daydreaming about how my life would eventually turn out for the best if so-and-so would accept me and be supportive. Daydreaming, indeed. In the end, I accomplished nothing, and whoever it was didn't even know I existed.

That's not the only example. I do similarly stupid things online as well -- sitting in an empty chatroom for hours at midnight, for example, waiting for that special someone to show up and blissfully enjoying the brief exchange such as this conversation below:

(0:03:05) Me: hi so-and-so
(0:03:08) SnS: hello room
(0:03:25) SnS: i heard the best joke today from my mate, it was about a blonde and her dogs
(0:03:44) SnS: oops i need to take out the rubbish brb
--Later--
(2:52:55) SnS: back
(2:52:59) Me: wb
(2:54:03) SnS: gonna play starcraft back later

Or maybe just look at this bash.org quote which people find hilarious. Is it funny? I guess if one is feeling particularly mean-spirited, anything can be funny. I don't find it any more funny than dead baby jokes right now.

So perhaps you can see why I'm a pessimist. You don't keep faith in big dreams when you know that people see you as a total loser. At leest I'm smertar then da avridge purssen on teh streat, write? Ewe kan alwaste kown ton hewmun stew piditty as a fie null copowt; dat's tha own lee grate ding abowt be-yng hewmun.

Three constants in human life -- here's one of them

This is an ever-evolving world we live in, but there are at least three things you can be sure of, three things that you can never be rid of: human stupidity, taxes, and bad government.

This time, it's about taxes.

I'm not strongly opposed to taxes in general, and I don't really mind being taxed as long as a large amount is directed to a good cause, such as welfare or a good Medicare system. What I do object to, though, is getting taxed to death as a lower-middle-class resident, being confused to no end by the bureaucratese in the tax code, and having practically no say over the system.

So, I recently got a letter from my university, and it was about reporting my tax status or something and said what to do with the scholarships I received last year. I don't really get it at all, with all the numbers and tables. It also mentioned a FREE (BIG LETTERS) session on this bureaucratese-rubbish, open to clueless students like me. I'm actually tempted to ramble about the stupidity of marking everything that rightly costs nothing FREE with big, bold letters, but I digress.

Anyway, so I got this letter, and I realized that it's tax-paying time. I'm not really a civic-minded individual, so I have no idea what I'm supposed to do. We always let some accountant in town deal with this, but after having purchased a piece of rubbish software called QuickTax, we're apparently on our own this year. Hello, I'm bureaucratese-illiterate. Subsequently, failure to even touch the software got me some prompt scolding for being a procrastinator, amongst other things.

In any case, I'm not sure if everything's been dealt with, and I'm really so sick of the tax stuff that I never even bothered to check. As far as I know, hiring the accountant doesn't really cost too much, considering how much we're already paying in taxes. We have little income, so that's a plus, but real estate can be a royal pain in the butt.

Finally, I just hope CSIS doesn't come barging into my home and arrest me for failing to pay the 2 cents I owed the Crown. This story made me a little sheepish, but that's like 2000 miles away, in some cannibalistic society where cats eat dogs, right? This in a civilized city we live in, with sensible laws, right? Right?

Crown copyright in Canada

Source: Boing Boing

As you might know already, Canada still retains the British monarchy and many traditions from their colonial days, and there is something called crown copyright that still lingers as an anachronism in the modern world.

Crown copyright is the control the government exerts over the works it has produced. In the case of Canada, anyone that wishes to use crown-copyrighted works for their own projects needs to seek government permission and go through much bureaucracy. Permission is usually given, but it's the principle behind it that needs attention.

While Canada has been seen by many Americans as a progressive state, in the realm of copyright disputes, it still lives in the barbarism of the 19th century. Unlike the US, Canada still keeps the old assumption that the government needs to control everything in many places. For example, while land ownership has a de facto status in Canada, by default, all land is owned by the crown. Government works, likewise, are copyrighted.

In the United States, all works produced by the federal government or its employees while on duty are rightly released into the public domain. That means they are not owned by anyone, and can be used by the people at no cost to themselves in any way they see fit. The people own government-produced works, basically. Examples include government reports, the CIA World Factbook, documentaries produced by the government, and any non-classified information released by the government. They can be performed, recited, modified, or resold by anyone without the government's approval.

Crown copyright hampers this. Except to the extent allowed for by fair dealing (fair use in the US) laws and judicial rulings, the people are restricted in what they can do with government works. Having to apply for government approval creates an unnecessary strain on Canada's already-ineffectual bureaucracy.

Also, unlike the US, Canada retains far too many ceremonial anachronisms from its colonial days. For example, Canada does have a senate (despite the fact that most Canadians don't know), except that its members are all lifelong appointees and serve absolutely no practical purpose than to look senile. The Governor-General, too, is a position appointed by the British sovereign on the Prime Minister's recommendation, and has been a very quiet post since the King-Byng Affair almost a century ago. Governors-General actually got so bored doing nothing they started giving out random awards for a living (c.f. the Stanley Cup).

Don't flame me yet, though. I do believe tradition has a place in Canada, and I strongly disagree that Americanization is the way to go; but the government really needs to be cleaned up and conform to a modern standard. Crown copyright reform looks like a great place to start.

Regarding China's new "anti-secession law"

Recently, the Anti-Secession Law was passed by the National People's Congress in the People's Republic of China. It was passed as a measure to prevent Taiwanese independence and to provide legal ground for the Chinese government to act on if such an event were to occur. One article mentioned that in case Taiwan declares independence or does something similar, China will intervene through "non-peaceful means".

Other than the typical threat of force, the bill also mentioned something curious: a new currency is proposed to unify the various currencies called the Chinese dollar, which is to remain at a fixed rate to 0.1 gram of gold forever. Now, I don't know much about economics, but I'm sure this, if implemented, could have a major impact. The bill also said that the PRC will never impose taxes on Taiwan.

I myself am of the opinion that China as it is now really shouldn't be one single country. My guess is that the country has always been controlled by the south-northern and mid-southern elite. And an invisible conflict seems still rampant between the deep south and the rest of the country. China, as you might already know, is not a homogenous culture. It's very much like Europe under the Roman Empire. The major unifying force that keeps China together is a common written language. Nationalism that arose at the end of the Qing Dynasty also contributed to this cohesion substantially.

The Chinese concept of Zhonghua mingzu, or an all-encompassing Chinese nationality, is an artificial one. The rationale behind overthrowing the Qing Dynasty was as much an anti-imperial revolution as a rebellion to oust a non-Han-Chinese government. But as soon as western and Japanese imperialism was perceived to be a greater threat, the previously nonexistent concept was drafted up to prevent parts of the Chinese empire from disassociating themselves from the country. Previously marginalized ethnic groups were then incorporated into the new national identity, creatng an illusion that China had always been one homogenous nation, tolerant of its minority peoples.

The truth is, even within the Han Chinese population, there are enough cultural differences to justify the existence of more than one autonomous nation. If Taiwanese independence is justified by its cultural difference from mainland China, then probably every Chinese province would have to declare independence. Unlike many huge nations, there isn't a sense of confederation within China. The general expectation is that China is just China, a single entity, rather than a federation of provinces and regions. This mentality is probably as true among the Chinese as among average Westerners. That sense of stability it brings, I think, is what the Chinese government wants to preserve. They don't want any secessionist movements springing up. The same can be said for Tibet and the sparsely populated western China, both of which are quite distinctively different from the Han culture.

With all that said, I don't like this new law. It has no basis in the modern world, and will probably prove to be another source of conflict. Taiwan, or the Republic of China, has never been part of the People's Republic of China, and is a sovereign nation by all means. I'm not against peaceful reunification, but this kind of international childishness is so last century.

Interesting/wacky news link

Necrophilia among ducks ruffles research feathers.

Are these ducks 'mallardjusted' like their human counterparts, or should we rethink certain things? It's an interesting question.

Why did I choose the username 'stillwaters'?

stillwaters (with a lower-case S) is my current username on this blog. It doesn't look all that special, and returns way too many Google results when used as a search term; so, naturally, as the vanity monster I am, why would I choose something that's neither unique nor attention-grabbing?

First of all, I registered for this username back in December as a place to publish stories online, one of which was to be titled stillwaters. Those projects have since then been scrapped, and I was left with this username. Back then, I was already using Movable Type to blog privately, publishing similar thoughts as I am now, but to an audience I was less comfortable with. That online journal was gone when the owner of the site pulled out and switched host, so I started to think of starting another blog, but this time with less restraint and a wider public audience.

Now, the name stillwaters is derived from the Chinese philosophical concept of mingjing zhishui (or as it is also commonly known in Japanese, meikyōshisui), which literally means "clear mirror, still water". I'm no expert on Chinese philosophy, but I believe this concept describes a serene state of mind that remains calm even when faced with great challenges. Flowing water doesn't show reflections well, so a turbulent mind therefore cannot accurately reflect upon itself. Still water, on the other hand, clearly reflects images in their entirety, and even when disturbed, it gradually returns to calmness, unlike the water that is constantly flowing and volatile. This idea has a special significance for me, as I'm a social phobic prone to panic attacks, and my self-evaluations are always filled with doubt and an unrealistic expectation. My state of mind is often like an endless torrent, raging down the channel. My attempts to calm it are dams along the way, but the water just keeps rushing in, never for a moment still, and eventually breaks down the dams, causing much more damage.

Okay, I'm clearly spending too much time being serious. Read my satirical Uncyclopedia article on Ayn Rand, if it hasn't already been vandalized.

More thoughts on Uncyclopedia

As I pointed out earlier, Uncyclopedia has a large American liberal slant, and is mostly made up of college students. This blog entry has a bit of analysis and speculation. My guess, though, is that it probably won't go far in terms of cultural impact (graffiti are sometimes more succinct and artistically impressive).

As I myself am not part of the American college-liberal bias, I have contributed a sort of humour that can be quite distinctively un-American. However, I am noticing that either the existing users or the incoming traffic are beginning to tip the balance a bit further into a crude, aggressive, and typically dismissive boisterousness.

This may end up horribly -- full of garbage and cultural vandalism, with the good gems edited out by people all too ready to advance their own perception of what is funny. Precisely because there is no universal measure stick for wit and satire, this collaboration may yet be overwhelmed with much more inane junk in the future. But I again have to ponder -- is that not the original purpose? But what kind of purpose really stays constant, especially for something as variable as an Internet site?

Or maybe I'm taking myself far too seriously.

</