Enemy of many, friend to all.

i finished reading ayn rand's The Fountainhead a couple months ago. this came some months on the heels of finishing Atlas Shrugged. i don't remember what i read in between. probably an assortment of CS textbooks and news articles on how barack obama will simultaneously be the next messiah (JL!) and the anti-Christ.

i love ayn rand. she's completely insane and i love her for it. her ideas are both brilliant and ridiculous. she believes so totally in her world that a willing mind can't help but be sucked in completely, left to wander the vast halls of her intellect, listening as voices boom and then furtively whisper from all sides, examining the reliefs carved in the walls of places where people compete to cooperate and destroy their loved ones and the treasures of their souls in order to save them.

i borrowed The Fountainhead from a friend who had read it, but had not read Atlas Shrugged yet. it only made sense that we exchange the books and share our thoughts. my friend read Atlas in about two weeks. less even. i don't know how. i was floored. such an accomplishment is on par with running a four-minute mile barefoot on broken glass while a band of unruly mexicans throws frozen bananas at you. it took me, i think, four months to read Atlas. i don't remember how long it took me to finally finish the Fountainhead, but it was way longer than two weeks, and the Fountainhead is about 400 pages shorter than Atlas.

and it turns out that i loved the Fountainhead more than Atlas. it's strange because the two main characters of Atlas are my favorites of ayn's, but the content and presentation and story of the Fountainhead are more appealing. i half-jokingly like to pretend that i am a shadow of Hank Rearden, one of the protagonists of Atlas. there are some similarities, both in physical description and in the way i see the world. i don't know what it says about me that i identify more strongly with Hank instead of Howard Roark (the equivalent protagonist of the Fountainhead), since at the end of Atlas (spoilers) Hank ends up losing the the woman he loves to that pompous savior John Galt, whereas Howard gets the girl at the end of the Fountainhead. perhaps i am destined to look for my own Dagny Taggart forever, coming close but never succeeding. or, more likely, it means nothing and says nothing about me. quem sabe.

my friend who has now read both books along with me does not seem to share my enthusiasm for all of the same things i love about ayn rand. ayn has a very peculiar attitude when it comes to certain kinds of people and certain kinds of professions, and she has a noted bias against those she perceives as weak of mind or heart. compassion for those unable or unwilling to help themselves is therefore a waste of time and effort, time and effort better spent on creation, innovation, on bettering the state of the world through universally mutual self-interest. this is very different than the attitude a compassionate, generous, person is supposed to take. it's not a very Christian attitude and ayn was decidedly nonreligious. this makes it difficult to reconcile things you know to be true with other things you believe should be true. you know you should help those in need. this is a fundamental tenet of my religion and our society at large. but why do you help them? what is your motivation? this touches on a basic question of human motivation. how do you define a selfless act? if you're helping someone in need, are you doing it because they need help or because it will make you feel good? probably some combination of both, right? which would mean your actions are not entirely selfless, which means your motivations are tied up in your own self-interest. if you can accept that you're motivated by self-interest, why is it such a leap to accept that there are certain actions you can take that are entirely motivated by self-interest that still benefit humanity as a whole? ayn advocates a rational, objective notion of self-interest. there is a mutual exchange or allocation between rational parties, legal and, assuming these, resulting in a pareto-improvement (an exchange that makes at least one party better off without making any other party worse off). if we can accept this as a worthwhile goal, then where does that leave those who cannot or refuse to help themselves, who time and time again fall into self-destructive patterns, who harm themselves and others through bad behavior? would a bright, intelligent, mature person's time not be better spent improving the state of the world for those who are willing or able to help themselves? where do we draw the line?

all questions i don't have the answers for. i respect ayn's point of view, one of hard-line competition between rationally self-interested parties without room for weakness, but at the same time i recognize its faults. ideally, everyone would be rational and able to understand how to overcome their weaknesses and would be willing to do it, but that's simply not reality and we can't dismiss a large swath of humanity with legitimate disadvantages and legitimate problems simply because we don't have time for them. ignoring them or marginalizing them in order to further improve the part of the world and the part of our society gilded with the light of our understanding and capacity is not only impossible, it's immoral and self-defeating. my friend is a social-worker who understands this better than anyone. the fact that she was independently willing to not only read ayn rand's writing but openly discuss its merits and ideas says a lot about her strength of character. it's easy for me, removed from much of the sheer ugliness of the world to pontificate on "the way things should be" and the "the way people should be," but it's much more difficult for someone, like my friend, to see how truly awful things are on a daily basis and not only not succumb to the pervasive sense of despair and ubiquitous unhappiness and hopelessness of such people and places, but to also explore the possibilities of something better through ideas and concepts presented in such a cold, unfeeling manner. would that i were similarly capable of such a thing.

New year, same as the old year.

So far. Maybe I should give it more time.

The video card I bought in November, I remember I had some concerns about my power supply being adequate. I inherited my current computer and was unable to conveniently figure out the wattage of the power supply, so I decided I'd just install the vid card and see what happened. Well, it worked all right, for two or three weeks. Then I started getting odd errors (HD cache write errors or something) and random locking up and restarting. Finally the computer wouldn't turn on at all, so I backed up my HD, unhooked it and borrowed another computer over the holidays and finally got my computer fixed just the other day. I figured it was the power supply and sure enough, it was. My power supply was outputting 500 watts, it turns out. Not nearly enough. Anyway I looked online and found some decent 750W+ power supplies for around $150 and up, but I figured I'd make use of my computer's free service warranty and just take it down to its vendor and have them install a new one right then and there. I expected the price to be around the same, maybe $30 or $40 more than the $150-ish I'd found online. Nope, try $100 more. I thought about it, and decided having it installed by guys who do that for a living (like I used to, haha) and having it done right then instead of waiting a week or so more was worth $100, so I paid up. Never thought I'd pay $250 for a power supply. Cost like $80 more than the video card did. Fascinating story.

My school, the University of Utah, just went to the Sugar Bowl, busting the BCS for the 2nd time in 4 years. Maybe 5. Whatever. Either way, I predicted a major loss, and instead they kicked the crap out of the mighty SEC's runner up, Alabama. It was gorgeous. Now, I say that, but I'm actually not a native fan of the team. I grew up on another, nearby, in-state team and my loyalties to that team will never die, but I am extremely proud of what Utah accomplished and have nothing but well-wishings for the program. However, I still want my team to beat them next year.

My Jazz are doing about as well as can be expected, considering the ridiculous amount of injuries they've been dealing with. Deron is looking more and more like his old self. 25 and 15 last night in 36 minutes, started 8-8. Crazy man. Boozer will be back in the lineup approximately never, and when never comes, he'll suck for 2 months while getting back into playing form and then IF the Jazz get into the playoffs he'll accidentally not play defense as usual en route to another disappointing 2nd round exit courtesy of the Lakers, or the Spurs. Meanwhile contract years for two more of the Jazz's biggest other players spell all around messiness in keeping this team together. This was supposed to be the year, man. Boozer and his elusiveness/duplicity is beginning to bother me, and if he manages to sabatoge my team during his quest to "get a raise" I will finally join the ranks of moron Jazz fans who unconditionally boo every former player regardless of the way they left/were booted from the team. At least when he's in town.

Drought.

Due to busy-ness in real life as well as my lack of money and their lack of appeal, I haven't played a game at all in the last few weeks, almost to the day of the last post on Nov. 23

I did try out Dead Space, which is a pretty awesome game. Beat it over the weekend of my last post, I think. It's fun. I thought about playing through it again, since it lets you "continue" with all the weapons and upgrades you got on the previous playthrough, but it doesn't allow you to "continue" on the next hardest difficulty level--only the same one--so it doesn't found that fun to play through it again, only much more quickly and easily. It wasn't even that hard the first time through. Weird design choice there, if you ask me. I did jump in my seat a few times. There were definitely some great, surreal moments where you really felt like you were in a horror movie like Event Horizon or Alien or something. Actually being in control of the character during those moments is an amazing feeling. Solid A- on that one, and the minus only because of a few minor gameplay frustrations and the lack of replay.

Acquired The Dark Knight on Blu-ray. Several different flavors of awesome. I only wish they had included some kind of commentary. I'm not normally big on commentary in my movies but this is one I'd happily sit through and listen. I also wondered if there ever been a Batman game where you have to choose what equipment ("wonderful toys") you're going to pack with you before each mission. Nothing comes to mind.

I'm tired of NBA commentators drooling over Chris Paul. He's good. He's not the freaking Messiah. I was watching some game a week or two ago and Paul casually dribbles uncontested into the lane, laterally, and does this little "around the leg" move where he's dribbling with his left hand and sort of puts the ball around his left leg and picks the ball back up again with his left hand. Anyone who knows anything about the game will tell you this is a very simple move to execute. You rarely see anyone doing it because it is not useful. It doesn't fake anyone out. It must be done too quickly for you to really move your body in any other direction to give it any real utility. In fact, my brother and I used to make fun of this WNBA commercial where a WNBA player does the exact same move, accomplishes nothing with it, and lays the ball up. So Chris Paul does this useless little trick move in the lane and then shoots a quick jumper moving away from the basket, and bricks the shot. The commentator (ESPN guy, can't recall his name at the moment) absolutely explodes. "This guy is a wizard with the basketball!" blah blah blah, he can't stop talking about it for what seemed like five minutes. They showed like eight replays of it from 45 different angles.

Seriously, guys? His little move did nothing. No one was faked out by it. Then he took a bad shot and missed it, and we're going to gush over him for it? This is another one of those cases where people believe what they're told. Everyone's so high on Chris Paul that everything he does is amazing, unless it isn't amazing and then it's someone else's fault. I can't stand that. He's good, but he's also flawed. He's a so-so leader, his shot selection is often suspect, he's disrespectful of his coach, and he talks like a ninny girl. Get over him, people.

I need a linear simulation.

Of the outcome of the election and what's going to happen during the next 8 years. Not that it would do me any good. I don't know if I'll vote, though. I know who I'll probably vote for if I do vote, but voting, period, is against my better judgment this time around.

I ordered a new video card, a 9800 GTX+ from eVGA. Amazon delivering I think through TigerDirect or some such thing. I haven't put significant computer parts together in about 7 years, and my ability to figure out if my power supply is adequate beforehand has vanished. I didn't even bother looking into it. PCI-E slot, check, 9 inches(!) of clearance, check. If the power supply can't juice it, then I'll have to get a new one of those as well. As for the 9 inches, well, I just hope it really will fit. I just found a hacksaw in the garage if not.

I don't play a lot of games on my PC anymore. PC time is homework time. The games I do actually play are MMOGs mostly, and those one at a time. Mostly I just got tired of having to tone down the graphics settings of any new game/demo I tried out. It's an inadequacy thing, you see. I wanted to try out Far Cry 2, so that was the catalyst. I couldn't resist the open world, or the setting. I love movies like Blood Diamond and I'm enamored of Africa seeing as I've lived there and seen some of the worst it has to offer. My 7600 GS is simply not good enough. I may need a CPU upgrade before the month is out, so I'm not bottlenecking the video card. I'm not Benchmark Guy, but by golly I'm going to get my money's worth.

I don't have enough time to play two games at once, so as soon as my focus leaves Fallout 3, it'll likely be on Far Cry 2. I may then try out LittleBigPlanet. Of course by then Left 4 Dead will be out and trying that is just a given. Co-op zombie-shooting survival? Sold.

Takers vs. Leavers

There's a debate going on about whether or not supposed "uncontacted" tribes discovered in the Amazonian basin should be contacted. This reminds me of the Prime Directive, although there are some obvious critical differences. A policy of noninterference is important because it allows people to make their own mistakes and they are forced to take responsibility for them. Letting them in on the "secret" of a greater, more advanced society means that those of that society must shoulder some of the burden that comes from the inevitably bumpy transition that must be made by that smaller, isolated people.

Anthropology will tell you that people in less-advanced societies work fewer hours and are generally happier than we are, in our big, globally-connected civilization. But then the question must be asked, why do primitive societies often opt to join our society? And when they discover not everything is fun and games, why are they unable to back out? I think it's for the same reason we ourselves adopt new technologies that do absolutely nothing for our overall personal happiness (cell phones, computers, etc)--because we can. Why pass up progress and innovation? We thrive on competition, and competition with everything around us drives us to find supposedly better ways to do things, when in reality all we're doing is forcing ourselves to work harder. So often, people who wish to retain the "old ways" of their people are painted as backwards and ignorant, but we're again forced to ask questions like exactly what our progress has afforded us. Are we happier, as a society? It's debatable, but probably not. Regressing, however, is simply not an option. It will never happen, at least not voluntarily. The more progress we make, culturally and technologically, the more we find that these things do not make us any happier or better, but paradoxically, in knowing that there exists what innovations we have made, we can't handle the thought of "going back" to the way things were. Why is that?

Should we tell the isolated Amazonian people that we exist? I don't know. If we don't, they live on for as long as possible just as they are, oblivious to us and what we've accomplished and their lives are certainly no less valid than ours. If we do, it's obvious they'll be unable to enjoy most of the truly revolutionary aspects of our culture for at least a generation or two, if not more, and I'm sure they won't be any happier for it in the end. If we do tell them, like Cain killing Abel, the farmer society will destroy the hunter/herder society like it has since the beginning of human civilization, and are we in some way guilty?

Nuggets need not apply.

Jason Whitlock thinks that one of the reasons the NBA is enjoying significantly higher ratings this year over last year is in part because the current participants of the playoffs (now down to Lakers, Celtics, Pistons) don't all look like "prison-ready brutes," and he refers specifically to the excessive tattooing undergone by a large number of NBA players. I have to agree, but only to a point. Last year's Finals teams didn't look like brutes, but ratings were in the toilet because the matchup was regarded as boring. Which, honestly, it was.

But the problem David Stern has is not just with "boring" teams. The Spurs are regarded as boring because they aren't young, fast, and don't run a lot. But the perception of teams who run a lot of half-court sets, picks-and-rolls and other basketball fundamentals is largely a product of who the NBA and media outlets market. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. These organizations market the teams and players they think and assume people want to see, and as a result they condition people to expect that, and then when people turn on the TV and don't see Kobe waltzing into the lane to dunk over some 7-foot center every 30 seconds, they decide it's boring and they change the channel.

Jordan's gone, guys. Stop marketing individuals, stop marketing dunks and buzzer-beater treys. Start marketing the game for what it is 95% of the time. If people can't accept basketball for what it actually is (that is, not a bunch of highlights of breakaway dunks strung together), then at this point you're only delaying the inevitable and the league is going under. But we all know that won't happen. We all know basketball is here to stay. So start educating people on the game. Help them to understand how the game works on a deeper level, and help them to appreciate fundamental offense and good, solid defense. Why do people around the world love soccer? There's a reason. People still watch baseball in droves, and that's one of the slowest sports on earth. And guess what, hockey is a very fast-paced game and how many people are watching that these days?

No, David Stern's problem is not because of teams like the Spurs, Jazz and Pistons. It's because he doesn't know how to properly promote his league, and while he and his colleagues run around trying to push the "new" MJs on us, fans drop by the wayside one by one. Couple that with the inconsistent reffing and the image problem Whitlock refers to, an image problem reflected in numerous polls conducted pitting the league against other major sports, and he's going to have a real problem on his hands real soon.

Vlade is just glad he got out early.

Apparently the NBA is going to start imposing fines on players who clearly flop. The fines will be assessed after games, following a review by some committee of "observers." The details are all a little fuzzy right now. All I can say is that while I'm glad something is being done to cut down on the serious flopping going on in the NBA these days, I don't know if it'll be enough. These men make enough money that a $10,000 fine is pocket change to them. Even to players making "only" around a million a year. Especially if they risk a flop, get the call, and their team wins a game as a result. A little fine isn't going to stop that, is it?

This'll only work if the fines are significant and repeat offenders are punished harshly. The main problem with this is that I doubt it'll be strictly enforced. What we'll see is a lot of flip-flopping (no pun intended) by the league and this committee of observers as to whether or not there was a flop. Most of the chronic floppers are not obvious about it, which is why they do it--because they can and because oftentimes they get the call. A repeat viewing is not necessarily going to make this and open-shut issue. They'll continue to do it, and a review of the action after the game is going to end up as a "we can't tell if it was a flop or not" kind of verdict and life will go on. The only flops that will be regularly fined are the really, really obvious ones while the more irritating, subversive ones that go on all the time will continue.

MLS has been doing better this year in no-calling or yellow-carding a player who obviously flops. In my opinion, flop-calling needs to be a foul-like judgment call by the ref as it happens, and while that may put more of a burden on the refs to make a subjective game even more subjective, it may in the end cut down on flopping because players would be less willing to risk it if it's a heat-of-the-moment call rather than an after-the-fact call. We'll see.