MMO trials

Yesterday, I just started my City of Heroes and Second life trials. The CoH trial lasts for two weeks, and the SL trial is for a week, though I have to cancel it early in case something comes up on that day and I get billed.

Second Life has an interesting premise, where players build and script the world as they play. They can also customize a wide range of aspects within the game, for example changing the character models on the fly and building on the land they own.

Building materials and other player-built objects may be sold for some game currency, which can then be transferred to real-world money. Good builders may also be rewarded by the game developers with real money. Of course, most people won't be able to benefit from this, but it's still an interesting premise. On top of that, it's primarily a socialization game. I don't think this game is worth the trouble, because I'm no 3d artist or scripter.

CoH, on the other hand, appears to be a plain hack'n'slash game to me. Since I was playing after 2AM on the North American server, it was almost empty, and it felt almost like a singleplayer game. In any case, though, the action is not exactly that fun, because it's still more of a mixed "CRPG", however inaccurate that term is.

I've been told that the fun doesn't start until I hit level 20. Am I, however, going to hit 20 within fourteen days? I think that's unlikely, unless someone somehow rapid-levels me. Let's assume that I got there eventually, but what if I wanted to start a new character? Running the treadmill again? I think not. :(

Moreover, I'm rather appalled that these things actually have price tags on them that exploit player attachment to characters. I mean, who else pays for MMOs? It's an endless drain and investment for players, requiring also an expansion pack every year to keep up with the rest of the player population. For that reason alone, MMOs do not generally attract casual players, unless they have too much money or spare time in the first place. Besides, having to pay each month tends to make people feel obligated to invest time and log in frequently, even if they're just hanging there AFK.

Despite that, MMOs are all the rage these days. It's a saturated market, but they still want to milk the industry as much as possible, with franchises that are guaranteed to make money -- D&D, Middle-earth, and so on. How ethical of them.

Uncyclopedia joins Wikia

Uncyclopedia joins Wikia

What will the future of Uncyclopedia be like? Will it finally replace Wikipedia?

A strong monarchy

Actually, I think the idea of a strong monarchy really appeals to me, in comparison to most models of democracy that have been tried today.

Why do I think that? Well, really, it goes back to my view on power.

Democracy, whether it's real or for show, gives the people power. At the very least, it gives a few more people disportionate amounts of power than a strong monarchy would otherwise, while feeding the people the illusory fantasy that they, too, can claim power, should they try hard enough.

I think that's a dangerous thought. There is barely enough wealth and resources to be distributed equally without at least 30% of the population groaning, and there is certainly not enough power to be distributed equally and adequately. In the end, not everyone can be a CEO or Prime Minister. Even worse, not everyone can be a manager or Member of Parliament. Everyone, however, can be a factory worker and a taxpayer. It may elevate the dirt poor, but it drags those that barely get by down.

Wealth and power are closely linked. With wealth, people may buy power or be offered power in exchange of wealth. With power, people may influence the flow of wealth. Today, wealth is finite, and thus, losing wealth is an intolerable thought, which leads people to seek power; power, on the other hand, is also finite. It, again, fuels the addictions to and obsessions with wealth.

All hopes for greater wealth in fact lie in the future, but I won't go too much into that for now.

A strong monarchy, perhaps, may be better suited for this world. But why a monarchy? Does absolute power not corrupt?

I don't think so. Monarchs bound by social conventions will feel constricted, and thus threatened, by external beings that share the power that is nominally theirs. Being monarchs, by definition people designated to great power, they will feel the lure and strive to grasp for more and hoard any excess power they have, if they feel capable enough.

But a strong monarch is different. While absolute rulership is impossible, a strong monarch will have both the ability to defeat challengers and enough power to keep all other people from having strange thoughts, such as the notion that they themselves deserve to be above someone else.

Democracies have constitutions and laws that are held in high regard, if not as sacred. However, rules such as those, whether written down or otherwise followed as social customs, are dead, rigid, and resistant to change; they cannot reasonably be applied to living human beings, yet despite all their flaws, they continue to drag living beings into the silent death in which they dwell.

Monarchs are generally no different under social rules and constitutions. However, some have proven to be weaker than others because of familial ties and the existence of other powerful people such as aristocrats, priests (replace with the clerisy in secular societies), and merchants, who may or may not have external backing outside of the monarchy.

However, with an exceptionally strong monarch, such forces can often be subdued and kept at bay. They might continue to plague the people, but with the majority of their systematic power stripped, they would not have nearly as much influence as they may have in propaganda-driven democracies, which are better called "chaoses".

Having the authority to override constitutions and laws is definitely a plus for a strong monarch, since those rules in normal circumstances are unbendable and easily biased as they have been written by human beings just as everything else.

Separation of power merely makes it harder for singular persons to grasp enough power to run a dictatorship. The division, however, does not make powerful people automatically stupid enough not to realize that by working together and keeping the status quo, they have a better chance of securing their own interests. Writing the laws or influencing the writing of laws is certainly a great advantage over being the dictator, as well as a great way to leech off social conventions.

A strong monarch, on the other hand, can effectively deal with such corruption. Even though holding great authority, the monarch does not have to scare the population into compliance with the threat or use of force. A content population will not threaten a strong monarch, and a strong monarch merely has to direct the power toward scheming, power-hungry people, which are a small and deviant part of the population.

Pipe dream? Oh yes.

Ultimate gamer

Random rich person's "game room".

This fellow has way too much money, but I'm drooling. Oh, dear.

Bush's Yalta apology a while ago

Bush is wrong on Yalta apology

Actually, I'd love to see Bush apologize to the Republic of China for abandoning it to the evil commies sixty years ago while visiting Beijing. It's a pity that no one would allow him to do that.

Consoles, reality, and other rubbish

With E3 come and gone, Microsoft and Sony have both announced their new consoles. It's much like the old console wars all over again, except that this time, we have two unbeatable giants in the foray -- Microsoft and Sony. Neither of them can be made to submit as Sega has, because neither of them depends on making games solely for profit.

As much as I'd like the Nintendo chief's optimism to come true, I don't think it is going to happen. With the combined might of Microsoft and Sony, it is likely that they will snatch a larger market than ever before.

Unlike in the last console war, however, I have seen what it really means to be a console game supporter. I was a little surprised I never saw it before, but I suppose some things have to come with experience, even if it's actualized bitterness.

What have I understood? I realized that supporting console games is an endless cycle, a cash sink that has no benefit whatsoever. Companies, unlike what people might think, give nothing in return to specific contributions. Consumers that have opted out of this cycle are abandoned and left alone in an outdated world that offers no support whatsoever.

What did my support of SNES achieve? Nothing -- I was summarily abandoned with the introduction of next-generation consoles. What did my later support of Sega Saturn achieve, in spite of our fickle financial status at the time? Nothing -- SS was devoured in a vicious marketing war that resulted in an oligopoly that was growing smaller and smaller, and instead of better catering to its remaining supporters, Sega abandoned SS and started Dreamcast.

Well, I bought a second-hand PSX (which completely exhausted my savings) practically after DC came out, and started to appreciate for a while the companies that signed exclusive deals with Sony. Unfortunately, with PS2 out, I was again abandoned for not having the money to continue.

Since I didn't hang out with anyone in school (because of stereotypes, it's not exactly a popular thing for someone like me to be into video games anyway), it didn't matter, but seeing certain people talk all day about their PS2's and Xboxes was not exactly helpful. Why did those people have all the consoles? Because rich daddy and mommy bought them. I had no opinion on companies making console games yet, though.

Finally, almost a year ago, I got a scholarship from my university, which was of course not enough for me to get all the consoles. I arbitrarily picked Xbox, a decision that was quickly overshadowed by a gap in technology and trends in the industry.

As you might understand, I'm certainly not a gamer; I only play video games to escape from reality (other kids take drugs instead). I didn't like the new trends that have sprung up during the years I was away from console gaming. On top of that, Xbox was a Microsoft product, which attracted little enthusiasm from Japanese developers, the ones which I was most familiar with, what with both Sony and Nintendo being Japanese.

When rumours started surfacing regarding another new generation of new consoles, I grew cynical. Did I contribute all this money to Microsoft and its associates for nothing? Really, I had already moved my focus to PC games, and so I started to see the situation a bit more clearly.

Game and console publishers reward their customers by milking them till they run dry, and then selling the drained carcasses for more profit.

With gaming companies all trying to push their 'security' schemes these days, I grow even more cynical. Look, I go to stores that sell video games, and guess what they do nowadays? They put security devices on those hit games, and do it so idiotically that we, in an officially bilingual country, are often shown only the French words.

I'm already upset enough with those scanner-thingies that look for store items when people exit or enter stores. Now they're pushing this sort of technology that applies not only inside the stores, but also on personal consoles and computers. It was once said that this sort of technology would never work because people could always break it, but with certainly games being mostly uncrackable today, I think it is changing.

Plus, MMORPGs and online games are rarely, if ever, cracked.

---

Well, even today, I'm trying to flee from reality through gaming, an effort that has been steadily growing more futile. I suppose it's partly because gaming is becoming more and more mainstream and closer to movies and other forms of entertainment; and it's probably also because I'm getting older, and with age and experience, it's becoming much harder for me to leave reality behind, with all the assumed responsibility thrown upon me.

I get tired.

Give me more quality games, please.

What about Canada...

(Partly in response to crzwdjk's question)

Canada isn't really that cold. Unless you wanna head up north to smaller towns, it's not much colder than New York or Utah.

Canada also has its share of dogmatic nutjobs that are ready to vote conservative the moment you mention "same-sex marriage". Unlike in the US, they're not universally Christians. There are some Hindu and Chinese communities that have substantial political power.

The conservatives are making a major comeback from their decade-long obscurity. These aren't traditional Tories either, but pro-American neoconservative hawks (i.e. Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day). They are probably going to win this election.

It makes people wonder how Canada appears so leftist to Americans despite its right-of-centre politics.

We also have a dominant-party system, which means that one party was in power federally for about 75% of the last century. Almost every leader of the Liberal Party has been a Prime Minister. This may change with the conservatives back in power again, however. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has a lot of power -- it controls both legislative and executive branches. This is supposed to help with accountability, but practically, any wannabe-tyrant could make good use of the position without violating the constitution too much.

Left-right confusion

I seem to recall George W. Bush referring to John Kerry as advocating "extreme leftism". Yes, that is a retarded misjudgement, but here's another idiotic quote.

"Senate Democrats, spurred on by left-wing interest groups, are attacking highly qualified judicial nominees with a nastiness that would make Darth Vader blush," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council [of the United States].

What left-wing interest groups?

He might as well say, "Canadian conservatives, spurred on by left-wing interest groups, are attacking the moral integrity which the United States of America has been attempting to force upon Canada with a nastiness that would make Satan blush."

Let's list a few policies held by the Conservative Party of Canada that are more left than many Senate Democrat can be stretched. Even though the conservatives are turning into neoconservatives because of American influence, they still got a long way to go before they can reach American neoconservatism.

• "Canadians depend on our public system of health care. That’s why the Conservative Party supported the federal-provincial Health Accord. A Conservative government will cooperate with the provinces to ensure adequate funding, shorter waiting lists, and more doctors and nurses. We will improve access to health care for all Canadians, regardless of ability to pay."
• "The Conservative Party will fight for low-income Canadians. We will increase support for Canadians on fixed incomes, including seniors, who face rising costs of living."
• "The Conservative party will fight for immigrants. We will work to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience."
• "The Conservative Party will fight for a clean environment. We will propose workable solutions to make Canada a world leader in clean air, clean water and clean land."

Now, these are simply promises, and any politician that loves his/her job is incapable of keeping promises. However, it is much better than the Republican platform, which begins with a pseudo-religious reference and continues with sensational wording. Furthermore, arrogance toward God is not a Christian attribute, as far as I understand. Government and faith don't mix, because government is inherently corrupt and it corrupts the faiths officials purport to hold.

There was a time in the past when I thought conservatism functioned as speed bumps to slow down the radicals. Nowadays, I see them as radical agenda-pushers who use nearly-fraudulent marketing techniques and encourage sensational appeals. I ended up taking the underlying idea into radical theory. It works well for me as a personal philosophy -- caution, moderatism, and an open mind mix really well.

I do believe the Canadian conservative politicians are insane enough as is, but at least they're not pulling the Enabling Act gag on us.

Dark, gruesome adventure game

I'm currently playing Still Life, an murder-mystery adventure game with a dark theme. It's interesting enough, but the puzzles... well, I'm no good at puzzles. I think I just lost a chunk of my brain trying to open the grandfather's chest. And who knew that going through a security door with the keycode right in your hand would be so hard?

It's sort of a Jack-the-Ripper story, although there seems to be more to the big picture than that. I'm still in chapter two, so I'll find out soon.

The game sort of reminds me of another adventure game on GBA I played a year ago with cartoon characters. I think it was Broken Sword: The Shadow of Templars.

Language Counts: Chinese and Japanese transcriptions

I suppose it's really unfortunate that Chinese doesn't have a katakana-like writing system or a more effective transliteration method for non-Chinese names. Unlike Japanese, which has systems that are relatively objective and regular, Chinese trascriptions suffer from terribly inadequate results. Without a central regulatory body, the media and publishers all have different random interpretations, causing great confusion that cannot be easily rectified.

Generally, it's fairly simple and straightforward to convert an English name to Japanese-readable sounds. In Japanese classes, it doesn't usually take students a long time to figure out how to apply the rules universally. Latin and French words should be fairly simple, too, if the basic rules have been grasped.

For example,

MacDonald (mack-donald) can be trascribed as makudonarudo. Several simple rules are used here. Japanese syllables typically end only in vowels or the n sound, and consonants cannot stand on their own. Therefore, the k sound is rendered as ku. There is no L sound in Japanese, so it is transcribed to the closest r, which requires a vowel, and thus it becomes ru. D also requires a vowel, and so it is do. Makudonarudo it is. John A. MacDonald is Jon=A=Makudonarudo or ジョン・A・マクドナルド.

"Ronald Wilson Reagan" would look something like ronarudo wiruson rehgan (say it in one breath and gloss over the u's), or ロナルド・ウィルソン・レーガン.

Of course, in speech a few of those mandatory vowels will be glossed over, depending on which accent we're talking about. Apart from unintended puns, this method is generally accepted and used without much trouble.

Now let's look at the Chinese model.

When trascribing, generally there is no particular rule to follow, except a three-character Classical Chinese motto for translating in general -- "xin, da, ya" -- which I think roughly means "meaning, understanding, artistry".

A few Chinese characters are typically associated with foreign names, while others are associated with a certain gender. That's a little difficult to reproduce here, but suffice it to say that this creates a lot of problems. Furthermore, Chinese has many major dialects, and Standard Mandarin only became the international standard Chinese dialect recently.

One trouble with Chinese transcriptions is that it is not possible to backtrace and figure out what a word really is in its original language. Obsessed with artistry, marketability, and superstition, Chinese translators often make words sound either very weird or Chinese-sounding.

How do you say McDonald's, as in the restaurant, in Chinese? Depends on where you are, actually, but in Standard Mandarin, it sounds something like mai4dang1lao3 (pronounced like, my-dahng-low, as in "allow"). The three characters used here mean totally unrelated things.

What the heck? Where did the "k" and the "n" and the "d" go?

And guess how you might pronounce McDonnell, a word that sounds rather similar. Now, this is not a multibillion multinational corporate name, so there is much more variation to be found. Here's one I have seen: "mai4ke1-tang2na4" (pronounced like, my-kuh-tahng-nah). The four characters, again, have totally unrelated meanings, although "ke" (to overcome) is often used in western male names. A little stereotypical, but that might be due to practical reasons.

Being relatively bad at Chinese, I think this is rather ridiculous.

Also, native Chinese names always have this format: [Last name] [Give name], where the last name is typically one Chinese character and the given name one or two characters. Thus, some Chinese translators love to put western names together like that. Watch them butcher the following names.

The mayor of Vancouver is Larry Campbell. Simple like that. In Chinese, his name is Li Jianbao (pronounced lee jee-enn bow). Heck, sounds like he's turned Chinese.

The premier of BC is Gordon Campbell. Yes, the two are cousins. What's his name in Chinese? Jin Baoer (pronounced jeen bao-err). His last name, on the other hand, becomes Jin.

The Prime Minister of Canada is Paul Martin. What's his name in Chinese? The translators happily make up arbitrary rules, calling him Ma Baole (mah bow-luh). He has two other names, actually, and they are Matian and Mading. I'm not part of or involved with the local Chinese community, so I have no idea what his name is now.

The names listed above also have different pronunciations in Hong Kong Cantonese, Taishan Cantonese, Shanghainese, Hakka, and Minnan; and often, translators introduce new transcribed names without considering other Chinese dialects. This gives people endless headaches, because it is generally not easy to deduce the original English names from their butchered Chinese counterparts.

Weird gimmicks aside, Chinese trascribing does have some de facto standards. For example, popular names like John, Jennifer, Paul, and such often follow traditional usage. Thus, John is often written as yuehan, which is closer to its original pronunciation. Masculine and feminine characters are also applied to names, as part of the tradition.

However, now we have a problem: it's rather common for popular first names to appear as family names or place names. When gender-specific characters, however, come into play, things become really messy. What do translators do now? Make things complicated, of course, by either leaving them alone or changing the sounds and characters.

The name Shelley and variations, for example, can be a girl's name. In this case, feminine characters are used for xueli, which sounds quite close despite the spelling. What if we're talking about the poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley? Well, the most often used transcription is xuelai (sounds more like Shell-lye), which is an unnecessary and inaccurate change. If the characters remain unchanged, then it becomes really confusing. Is it a man or a woman?

I seem to be rambling now, so I'll just quickly conclude and say that these are the problems with Chinese trascriptions I've observed, compared to the more efficient Japanese model. Personally, I just got a bit frustrated when a Chinese book I was trying to read mentioned a Roman consul by name. The problem was that there were about a million Roman consuls, and all of them had similar names. I couldn't figure out if it was "Titus Manius", "Didius Manlius", "Titus Didius Manlius", or even "Titus Germanicus". Many of them also shared the same names. It was a major headache for me.

Funniest thing I've read all week

Morality can be likened to electricity:

If electricity is made of electrons, I deduce morality must be made of morons.

Doesn't reflect my thoughts. I just find this really funny.

Busy writing rubbish

Yarr. I'm busy writing rubbish right now, because I'm terribly bored. The results, if adequate, will be posted on another site.

If you know anyone who's struggling with social anxiety -- do pay them some attention. They're probably not just depressed; they're really, really bored.

Fantasy settings and reality

There are a lot of fantasy worlds and settings out there, whether in books, movies, drama series, or games.Tolkien's Middle-earth is one great example, and so is the world in Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Fantasy worlds could be a niche territory, for example Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, and they could be mainstream.The Lord of the Rings movies are one such example.

Fantasy fans who talk to each other, though, may often hear conversations like these:

1)
A: "This part is totally unrealistic. It's not like that in the real world."
B: "It's fantasy. It doesn't have to be like the real world."

2)
X: "This inaccurate portrayal of minorities is an affront to us!"
Y: "It's fantasy. It doesn't portray minorities."

These fantasy fans, however, do not understand one of the most important principles behind writing fantasy: all fantasy is based on reality.

Why does fantasy appeal to people? Because fantasy is based on reality. Without real-life models to draw comparison to, fantasy would be meaningless. Elements in fantasy come from real-life models, and they should be readily recognizable.

FR elves are easily recognized for what they are, because they look human, act human, and feel human. Yet they do not possess all human qualities, but only those that are perceived to be essential, snobbish, superior, and exotic; there is enough distance to make their elevated status acceptable but not enough to alienate fantasy fans. They have the same facial layout as human beings. They do not walk with their hands, nor do they eat with their noses. They are partly based on human beings in the real world, and they thus serve their purpose as unearthly human-like beings in the fantasy setting.

When writing fantasy, writers must consciously choose elements from reality to construct a world with a certain feeling and atmosphere. If an author wants to introduce an archaic flavour, s/he may change the characters' speech patterns accordingly; the characters may be made to speak an archaic version of English, for example, because to the author, that is the best way to convey the feeling.

However, if the author uses language that is anachronistic and grammatically wrong, it may draw fire from critics, while fans may defend the language, saying that the language is not English and thus is not a reflection of reality. However, such errors will diminish or nullify the feeling and atmosphere the author wants to express in the first place. The errors will create unwanted humour and feelings of unprofessionalism.

Have you seen stuff like this?

[The Lord of Darkness]: Thou hath killeth mine lieutenants! Thou musteth dieth! (exaggerated)

Unless we're talking about humorous stories or deliberate and consistent usage, this should not be defended by fans. This does happen in professional fantasy settings, unfortunately, because few people really know the difference between "mine" and "my" in Early Modern English. Also look at this example:

[Someone who looks Asian]: My name is Lee Vin Fu, and this here is my brother Lee Ieyasu. We are from the Middle Kingdom of the Rising Sun. (paraphrased)

Again, this is more readily defended by fans, because many don't see the implication in this merging and mutilating of cultures in fantasy. Suffice it to say that had the writers learnt and understood more about the cultures from which they were drawing inspiration, they would've done more to rectify this issue.

Fantasy is really based on reality, and understanding and enjoyment depend on the fan's ability to understand and assimilate the content into comparisons to real-life models. The dragon would not look majestic and awe-inspiring, if the qualities that make it appear so are taken away, qualities that apply just as well in reality. Without the towering height and the natural aura of elegance, a miniature dragon would look no more intimidating than a large beast. Certainly, the psychological laws could be suspended to make creatures in the fantasy setting to be universally fearful of miniature lizards, but that would have many unforeseeable consequences and the setting will appear absurd because of its deviance from reality.

HaloScan ain't that great

Yet I have no idea why I paid, er, I mean... "donated".

Sure, $12 is not that much if you think about it, but I thought the same thing when I paid $130 for a few pieces of rubbish software and $59.99 for a lousy kit I can put together myself with public domain content from the Internet. Oh well, getting someone to cut the lawn costs more.

If only Blogger would offer a better commenting service. At least HaloScan lets premium members export comments quickly.

Corporations infiltrate the American Courts

The SCOTUS rejects appeal from website wrongly shut down by corporate threat

A brief summary is that the website, InternetMovies.com, was wrongly accused of providing Lord of the Rings: Return of the King up for download and was sent a cease-and-desist letter by the Motion Picture Associaton of America (MPAA). Under the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the site was temporarily shut down in 2001 without due investigation. The site owner now appealed the case, and was rejected by every court of law.

A few points here -- first, Return of the King came out in 2003, and to think that a site could put it up for download in 2001 was simply ludicrous and sheer idiocy from the MPAA. The MPAA constantly takes the moral high ground, despite the fact that it is itself a morally bankrupt, greedy, and uninformed organization. Even though reviled by the social conservative, the liberal right, and the left alike for its moral evils, the MPAA somehow still manages to exert great control over legislation and regulatory agencies.

The only place where the MPAA could possibly be put down was thought to be the judicial branch of government, but then again, the MPAA has gone on the offensive internationally in court, suing people left and right. It cannot be put down when it is always the plaintiff, and "filing frivolous lawsuits against minors and the deceased", unfortunately, does not break the law. Not in America, or Canada -- whatever, they're both the same.

However, as various cases have shown, not even the courts would confront the MPAA's evil ways of treating consumers and ordinary citizens as criminals. Perhaps the judges have already sold out, but it is more likely that they have never been on the people's side. All hopes for judicial "justice" are folly, because there is no justice in tyranny.

On the other hand, at the bare minimum, copyright should never be held by people other than the creator of the content or "intellectual property". It gives me headaches to hear that artists have to ask for their publisher's permission to reproduce their own works on their sites or other places, because they have already given up their copyright in a contract. Too bad that these money-packed foreigners are given special privileges for having the entrepreneurial spirit -- that is, the nerve to milk the consumer-cow until it runs dry, and then milk some more, and then sell the carcass to fund McDo's Big Macs.

The American Congress sold out to corporations, and now they infiltrate the courts. I'd like to know the rates so I can sue whomever I want for a million dollars. Great news if you plan to start a multi-billion multinational corporation, I reckon...

The King James Bible is holy and inspired blah blah blah.

While surfing randomly today, I came across a dozen sites that vehemently support the King James Bible. They lambaste other English language versions, calling them perversions of the Word of God. What's more, these people actually know how to type, so stop the stereotype first.

Being the non-verbose iconoclast that I am, I'd like to criticize the King James Bible as well. Indeed, the King James Bible stands on shaky grounds, its authors, editors, and sponsors being of dubious backgrounds.

1) King James I of England was the prime proponent of the Divine Right of Kings.

James I wrote in his Works (1609),

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.

...

Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only.

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy ...

I think this passage speaks for itself. Can proponents of the King James Bible honestly say they still consider a Bible translation commissioned by this king holy and inspired?

2) Tyndale was much more qualified than King James' committee.

William Tyndale was a priest from an earlier period, and he was one of the early pioneers who attempted to translate the Bible into the local vernacular. Many later translations are also based on Tyndale's effort, the King James Bible included.

His most visible contributions include the introduction of new words into English: words and expressions such as atonement, scapegoat, and so on.

Tyndale was burnt at the stake for translating the Bible, unlike the committee of King James I who had the support of a king that considered himself divine. Hmm, why does no King James Bible proponent mention Tyndale?

3) The committee -- who were they?

It needs to be said that no one has any idea what the translators' qualifications were or even who they were. This fact is recognized by King James Bible proponents. We know nothing at all about their understanding of Ancient Hebrew. Can anyone say what their names were, just to name a random question? Remember, it was a committee, commissioned by King James I. Anyone with an axe to grind could mess up the entire thing, and the king obviously already did.

Too much blind faith and too little evidence here.

4) Early Modern English -- can you read it?

If it's just Shakespeare, then fine, because it's not something everyone gets excited about. But this is a Bible translation, and thus to be read as the Word of God for most Christians. It doesn't matter how many people say it's easy to understand, because it isn't. It was written in an English dialect that was even archaic-sounding for King James' time. How often do people mix up words like "thou", "thee", "thy", "thine", "ye", "you", and so on?

Do people realize why "thou" was used? To make it sound formal and stern? No!

"Thou" was the familiar second-person pronoun, similar to the French "tu". It was used so the people would find God less intimidating and more familiar. Do people know that nuance? Probably not. Can people feel the feeling behind it now? No. How many more nuances are there? Countless. Look at the next example.

Another example is the phrase "help meet", which is now taken (or corrupted) to mean "helpmate" or "wife". But do you know what "help meet" means in Early Modern English? The answer is it doesn't mean anything by itself. The full phrase in Genesis was "an help meet for him [Adam]"; that is, "a helper suitable for him"! It's not a "ye olde Englishe" spelling at all.

People who claim the King James Bible is easy to understand either underestimate their own advanced reading abilities, have already misunderstood the Bible without knowing it, or simply haven't read it very carefully or at all.

5) You are reading a revised version already.

The "King James Bible" you are holding in your hand is a Satanic product of lies and has already been perverted by revisionists! Don't believe it? Here is the inspired Holy Word Of God Who Speaketh English and English Only:

THE EPISTLE OF PAVL
the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes.

CHAP. I.

1 Chriſt in theſe laſt times comming to vs from the Father ...

What? Still too much revised? Okay, let me show you an original page then from the only inspired edition. Ahem, I mean... Be thov readie to receiue vponne thine altere the Word of God euen here.




"But that looks nothing like English!"

Too bad! Early 17th writing and speech would both be largely incomprehensible to modern English-speakers without artificial editing, even though the Great Vowel Shift was coming to an end.

Some more food for thought: Defects of the King James Version.

"No Dogs or Democrats or Da Like"

In a manner befitting a born-again Christian pastor, Pastor Chan Chandler from East Waynesville Church in North Carolina asked members who refused to support George W. Bush to "resign or repent".

The friendly pastor now enjoys his tax-free life preaching to the Bush-supporter-only congregation, in spite of the law: "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office".

It might be reasonable to tell a church member who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ to "resign or repent" (though I would never consider that kind of tone reasonable), but this is utter lunacy from a preacher.

How in the world is Bush this charismatic? People seem to support him with much more fervour and religious fanaticism than Reagan.

Freedom Thought: Why I dislike Wikipedia

Wikipedia purports to be the free (libre; as in liberty) encyclopedia, and is rapidly becoming a mainstream source. I contribute to the project quite a lot, too. But is this project really living up to all the hype it has generated? Is Wikipedia truly free? I think the answer is no.

I don't like Wikipedia. It is mainstream, it is not free, and it pretends to be free. I'm going to list three reasons why I dislike Wikipedia. Note that I'm not saying Wikipedia doesn't work. It probably works and most likely will fare much better than Encyclopædia Britannica can ever hope to achieve. That doesn't mean it is inherently good, or free, or even likeable.

1) Jimmy Wales has the ultimate say in all matters.

I don't care what kind of project this is, but when a project is associated with and managed by someone referred to as the "God-King", it is blatantly un-free. This sort of near-religious fervour results in the kind of shallow "freedom" that lowlife politicians promise to give the people.

Of course he works hard. George W. Bush works hard. Bill Gates works hard. Henry Ford worked hard. Stockwell Day worked hard. That doesn't mean their hard work ensures anyone any freedom.

2) Wikipedia is centralized and associated with commercial companies.

How is Wikipedia free when its content, its servers, its resources, and its database are all centralized, controlled and managed by a few individuals? Recently, Wikipedia had reached an agreement with Yahoo!, with Yahoo! agreeing to host parts of Wikipedia; negotiation with Google is also assumed to be ongoing. Why centralize and hand over physical control to capitalists? That is not free; even worse, any country, such as China, can ban Wikipedia easily.

Another argument from some Wikipedians is that Wikipedia is available for download. However, just because starting another free encyclopedia is a theoretically possible option doesn't mean it is plausible. Wikipedia has gone mainstream, with a near monopoly on open encyclopedias, and to exist alongside it and despite it is highly implausible.

An analogy might be that a bunch of freedom activists are told by the government, which purports to run a free state, to go away and start their own country on some remote island. It might theoretically be possible for their new free community to prosper in spite of the un-free government, but how plausible is this? Isn't that pointless, wasteful capitalistic "competition"?

Since Mediawiki was specifically developed for Wikipedia, why could the developers not design a p2p protocol specifically for Wikipedia? Despite the money going into Wikipedia, the servers are almost always slow beyond belief. Instead of asking for spare change from people, why not let them contribute bandwidth? Why not start a Wikinet, and revive the Freenet movement?

Why continue the assumption that anything good must have "respectable" corporate backing? Freenet was despised and ignored, because people are uncomfortable with genuine freedom, and as a result few practical uses ever came out of the slow network which has never grasped mainstream attention. However, a project as large and ambitious as Wikipedia could easily help promote true freedom, the kind that is not as shallow as modern democracy.

If Wikipedia is not about freedom, then why in the world call it the "free [libre] encyclopedia"? Wouldn't that be just an excuse to say something like this? "This project is not free as in free of charge because we want to reserve the right to make money off it but are still too uncomfortable with the thought of losing control of it. Free still sounds catchy though."

3) Wikipedia pushes impossible policies that are defended by religious fanatics.

Let's look at the "NPOV" business. NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, and according to founder Jimbo Wales is "absolute and non-negotiable".

Free, as in liberty, encyclopedia? Forget about that for now.

NPOV (often used as an adjective) means unbiased and neutral. According to Wikipedia's policy page, it means "articles should be written without bias, representing all views [i.e. POVs] fairly". It is the Holy Grail of Wikipedia.

Semantics aside, the NPOV policy causes many problems.

First of all, it is practically impossible to determine what is truly neutral or unbiased. Human languages are quite subtle, and mechnical rules often cannot detect sarcasm or deliberate agenda-pushing. An article can be said to be fully NPOV by one party and determined to contain too much irony or bias by another party; no one is ever satisfied. This policy creates an argument to fall back on.

The way some Wikipedia users talk about "NPOV" is almost akin to religious fanaticism, much like how some Americans see their Constitution as the Second Bible.

Certainly, it is necessary to have principles laid out, but when principles become religion, particularly because they are put forth in such a fashion as to be absolutely non-negotiable, what hopes and assurances do people have toward building a free, as in liberty, encyclopedia?

Personally, I cannot agree with the GFDL, because it is a lengthy licence that still fails to ensure balance between the contributor, the end-user, and the greedy capitalist. What exactly am I contributing to in the name of freedom? Wikipedia fails to answer the question efficiently and adequately.

Why am I still contributing to Wikipedia? People can answer the self-explanatory question by asking themselves the following questions: 1) Why do people still go to college/university and make contributions to professors? 2) Why do people use Windows, knowing how badly it sucks? 3) Why do people still work corporate jobs, contributing money to executives? 4) Why do people even pay for knowledge?

No, Wikipedia is not free (libre), but as viewer one can at least use it as a free (gratuit) source for now.

Ancient textbook quotations

"Although anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage, yet there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man … . At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

"… if such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways of preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country."

From Hunter's Civic Biology, official textbook used in Tennessee in 1925.

Nothing special, just another page in the history of humankind, literally.

Personally, I don't understand where meaningless labels such as "white" or "black" or "brown" really came from. The "whites" don't really have white skin. Many people from northern and southwestern Asia probably are as pale as the average European, and yet from a geo-pseudo-biological viewpoint they'd be considered "yellow", "brown", or "coloured".

This insanity has driven me to accept an idea inspired by certain radical feminists. I'll discuss it later.

Big Brotherism and fascism

Big Brother is looking at your money

Isn't this exactly what fascism is about? Companies working with the government to reduce ordinary people's rights, all in the name of "anti-terror" and the USA PATRIOT Act ("Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", not the "Patriot Act", which is propaganda and has nothing to do with the act itself).

It gives me a headache to think that the two-party system responsible for this has been flaunting its advocacy for freedom and democracy for decades. Democracy requies a multi-party system with free elections that matter, not dual-party system with elections that only matter in certain counties and states.

I thought the Second Amendment of the US was exactly for this sort of government corruption and intrusion, but I don't even see any case of civil disobedience happening, except in filesharing, which is a very insignificant niche receiving no political attention whatsoever.

Meanwhile, the RIAA, the MPAA, and Monsanto continue to wage war on consumers and ordinary people worldwide, and the mainstream media don't even give them a critical look. The poor people can only pray that unelected judges make sound rulings, and then proceed to worship those that do as if they were saints (c.f. Judge Konrad von Finckenstein).

Democratic? If that's what we are, then democracy is a synonym for fascism. We might as well appoint Stephen Harper King of Canada and let him do whatever he wants. Let's install video cameras in all bedrooms and start enforcing anti-deviant sexuality laws.

Who came up with that ad?

I think people are already used to sidebar banners as a necessary evil. Unless they're really distracting, that is. And I just saw one extremely annoying ad:

A SWAT team fellow, or something, shooting at the viewer, nonstop. Animated flash.

Whoever designed that ad should be forced to stare at the same animation for ten minutes every time an ad impression is generated.

Needless to say, I have hard-banned the ad from ever showing up on my computer again.

Something about the young tailor

I retold the following story, changing bits of it, to demonstrate the importance of maturity and wisdom. Apparently, the Internet has a lot of angst-ridden teenagers that are rather clever but are a little too confident in themselves. Humility is really a much needed virtue in smart teenagers, because that's the one thing most teenagers don't have, many socially anxious teens included.

Am I safe for now? I guess not. It's better to have a little self-doubt, and I have a lot of that.

"Once upon a time, a talented young tailor set up shop in a village. He made quality suits and was very successful. He was intelligent, and he knew that no other tailor could beat him, because his skills, mastered from the days when he was an apprentice, were unmatched

One day, a middle-aged man came along to custom-order a suit. Alas, it was an ignorant man who got all the measures wrong and demanded that the suit be made precisely according to his instructions and with the poor materials he has brought.

The young tailor thought, well, there was no point going against the instructions, and since the man was too foolish to get things right, I should just do as he asked and let him see how much of a fool he was with all his demands. That would show him to never ignore my skills and expertise.

Sure enough, the man came back and took the suit without saying a thing. The young tailor thought it would be amusing to watch the man come back in a day or two to beg for his valuable input.

Well, it turned out that the man was a tailor from a town nearby. Displaying the poorly-made suit with the signature brand name for all the see, the man set up shop and derided the young tailor for his foolishness and arrogance. Within a short amount of time, the young tailor's business failed, not only because of the suit, but also because of the lack of respect he has toward his craft and his clients.

Realizing how unwise he truly was, the young tailor had a valuable lesson in humility and decided to relearn his craft. With the talent he already has, he was able to rebuild his reputation elsewhere years after, through nothing but humble craftsmanship."

The Way of the "Marketer"

The Way of the Marketer is the perfect demonstration that shows Christianity doesn't even exist in North America. It will always be a faith with only a few true followers here and there at best, despite what the numbers might say.

Protesting, the perfect Christian says, "Praise the Lord, for he has given me a steady job that pays me $900,000 a year."

And here's another perfect Christian, who says, "Give me strength O Lord, so enough people may vote for the politicians I support. Punish the others, for they must be atheist heathens."

Once again, here's another perfect Christian, who exclaims, "Hear my prayer O Lord. I have suffered too many lazy welfare-bums to live. Punish them, O Lord, for they leech off tax dollars that the sinful communist government has taken from me."

Well, I suppose some genuine quotations may be required, from a few preachers in North America:

"I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm going to be blunt and plain: if one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died."

"If I do not return to the pulpit this weekend, millions of people will go to hell."

"Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest."

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"... blow them all away in the name of the Lord."

"People's business in the bedroom is the business of the nation, because civilization will crumble if we do nothing to stop evil in the bedroom."