Enoch

I've had a reasonably stable trip through New Vegas. But I've just tried twice and have been unable to get through the endgame slides without a freakin' crash. Of all the things that can go wrong with the game, the ****ing endgame slides??!!! Edit: Make that three tries.

Another entertaining thing about the Bucs-Skins game: That final touchdown probably should never have happenened. So the botched PAT was a nice touch of karma. As for Tampa, generally, I know the schedule (DET, SEA, @NO) favors them down the stretch, relative to the other NFC contenders. But I just don't think they're going to be healthy enough to make a push. In the last 3 games, they've lost 6 starters for the remainder of the season-- G Davin Joseph and S Cody Grimm against BAL, CB Aqib Talib and C Jeff Faine against ATL, and DT Gerald McCoy and LB Quincy Black yesterday against Washington. It's going to take at least 10 wins to get a wildcard spot in the NFC, and with that many guys out, I think it's a stretch to see them winning 2 of their last 3 games, even against weak opposition. The Bucs have put together an unexpectedly promising season, though. Freeman looks like a solid starting QB-- with Blount, Williams, and Benn, it looks like they have the foundations of a nice offense. They need some more on the OL and at scattered spots all over the defense, but they're a team on the rise.

I could see Baltimore taking the Pats out. SD played them close, too. The Falcons have a couple games' advantage on the rest of the NFC, so they're likely to get a first-round playoff bye. But I agree with Hurl that there isn't much separating the NFC contenders. The Falcons aren't measurably better than Philly (who beat them pretty bad), the Saints (who took them to OT in the first meeting, and would've won if their kicker hadn't honked a 29-yard FG), or the Giants.

Yeah, Kelverin had been the guy who kept the annual NFL thread bumped, but he hasn't been around this year. Anyhow, the Pats are strong contenders. Their defense might end up holding them back (keeping the Jets and Bears in the single digits isn't that much of an achievement), but that offense is machine-like in its efficiency. I'll be spending this evening in the sports bar up the road, watching my Giants in their rescheduled game "at" the Vikings. The losses suffered by the Bears and Packers were good news for NYG's playoff chances-- too bad the Redskins and Cowboys couldn't pull through on their almost-upsets of Tampa and Philly. (Although the ending of that TB-WAS game was an all-time-sports-blooper classic.)

I want an ending where the Turian Councilman saves the universe, and Shepard is convicted for violations of interspecies sodomy laws.

Grr... So I browned some boneless chicken breasts for dinner (after having soaked them in an oliveoil-garlic-lemon-hotsauce mixture for awhile), and threw the pan in the oven to finish cooking. After they were done, I set the pan on the range while pulling the other meal elements together. For some reason, I wanted to move the pan to a different part of the range. That's when came the unthinking full-fisted grip of the oven-fresh handle, and me hopping up and down saying "AAAAAAA!" in my kitchen. This is not my preferred way to get out of doing the dishes. Although it is a nice excuse to make sure that there is a cold beer in my hand at all times for the remainder of the evening. The chicken was quite good, though. As was the cream of broccoli soup.

I can see it now-- wall blown down, buildings flattened, trees uprooted, all to the chorus a dozen men shouting together with the same exact voice: "I SAW A MUDCRAB THE OTHER DAY..."

On Caravan: The game is pretty solid, rules-wise, and there's a depth of strategy you don't get in games something like pazaak. But that depth of strategy was too much for the AI (at least until the patch gets here), so there's no real challenge. And, as mkreku alluded, the PC interface is completely awful-- with no use for the mouse and my right hand on the arrow keys, I feel like I'm playing a game designed in 1991. Also: Fantastic work, LC. I cracked up at the part when you could see The King watching the show.

Agreed. The history of modern Iran is a pretty sad story. A large country, rich in history and natural resources, sitting on important trade routes, and home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, misruled alternately by dickering colonial powers, foreign-backed autocrats, domestic theocrats, and (now) an effective oligarchy composed of the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. The fall of this particular regime wouldn't be much regretted, but the chaos and difficulty that will likely follow isn't to be eagerly anticipated. Honestly, I don't think Iran is that different from the USSR in those aspects. I wonder what people might have said in 1988 though: "The history of Russia is a pretty sad story. A large country, rich in history and natural resources, sitting on important trade routes, and home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, misruled alternately by autocrats and their cronies backed by the church exploiting the population to absurd lengths, and then a communist regime more than eager to murder their own or send them to labor camps, and (now) an effective oligarchy composed of the leaders of the CPSU. The fall of this particular regime wouldn't be much regretted, but the chaos and difficulty that will likely follow isn't to be eagerly anticipated." Also, I think Iran would be more likely to use nuclear arms than the USSR ever was. The point wasn't really that Iran is all that different from the USSR-- more that the path into pseudo-democratic kleptocracy that the former Soviet states took post-1991 isn't something to look forward to happening in Iran.

Agreed. The history of modern Iran is a pretty sad story. A large country, rich in history and natural resources, sitting on important trade routes, and home to some of the most beautiful women in the world, misruled alternately by dickering colonial powers, foreign-backed autocrats, domestic theocrats, and (now) an effective oligarchy composed of the leaders of the Revolutionary Guard. The fall of this particular regime wouldn't be much regretted, but the chaos and difficulty that will likely follow isn't to be eagerly anticipated.

Isn't EVE Online best known for being the MMO that features lots of betrayal and nefarious skullduggery? Hackers aren't a problem-- they're a feature!!

Holy crap, Black Mountain is crash city!

Saying "I could have worked that out" betrays a lack of understanding about terrorists. I hate to break it to you, but they just aren't very bright. Which is kinda why they become terrorists. Moreover, even if they did make a guess as to the sites which are or high significance, they wouldn't actually know for certain. The list takes away that uncertainty. We may be talking past each other, as that's kinda the point I was trying to make.

If realpolitik and backroom deals have come to an end, then diplomacy itself is pretty much over. The whole idea of having little enclaves of sovereign ground in the capitals of other nations-- the violation of which is considered by the community of nations as something greater than a simple act of war-- is still a very good and useful innovation. And it absolutely requires a great deal of privacy and confidentiality to function. Public disclosure of leaked communications between these enclaves and the mother country is an attack on one of the core principles of diplomacy in our civilization. I don't know about legal liability to any one state, but the ideology that puts unaccountable, unreviewable, and sometimes anonymous private parties in the position of deciding what secrets should be publicized is misguided and regrettable. (Of course, exceptions are justified for truly important disclosures. The world became a better place when the Pentagon Papers hit the street. But I add that the parties involved with leaking and publicizing those documents all went through extensive legal battles in dealing with the consequences of their actions. (The NYTimes won; the leaker, Daniel Ellsberg, turned himself in and faced trial, but the charges were tossed due to gross misconduct by the FBI.)) As to putting the genie back in the bottle, so to speak, the best solution is to better police the people who have access, and stop them from leaking stuff. That's a far more credible approach here than it was in the Napster analogy you pose.

Because that would have the opposite of the intended effect vis a vis stopping future leaks of classified material.

Exactly. The moral thrust of civil disobedience is to do what you think is right, regardless of the cost or retribution that may come from the authorities. Evading that retribution greatly undercuts the moral authority with which you speak. That said, that doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. has any existing legal authority to reach him. Most of the speculation I've seen centers on the Espionage Act of 1917, which seems like a pretty thin reed to go on. I've been on the record that there hasn't been anything all that newsworthy in what he's leaked. The damage to the level of secrecy required to have a functioning diplomatic system-- which is a pretty major concern when the country involved is the primary actor in dealing with the "problem" states in the world on behalf of the rest of the West-- has been the main casualty. But the recent disclosure of the US's list of essential infrastructure sites changed my mind about that. Most of those sites could be reasoned out by a sophisticated attacker, but the vast majority of would-be terrorists who'd like to damage the U.S. aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (witness the attempted shoe- and underwear-bombing numbskulls), and an itemized target list removes a serious obstacle from their bid for martyrdom. That's the kind of leak that can get people killed.

Try liberal amounts of bourbon in your coffee/tea. It always works for me. No, bourbon is awful in tea you have to use vodka. I have field-tested this extensively, if you are going to drink bourbon at work become a lawyer or a doctor. Lawyers don't drink at work, they do blow instead. Huh. My ignorance of this particular rule might just have something to do with the disappointing performance assessment...

So today was the day that employee annual appraisals are released to staff at my agency. My performance is assessed in 8 competencies, with 4 ranks in each (basically, Lousy, Average, Above Average, and Really Good). I think my boss did a pretty good job in noting my strengths and weaknesses, but it came out a little odd and in a way that kinda screws me. I rated "Really Good" in 3 categories (the ones about critical thinking, research, and writing) and "Average" in the other 5, with no ratings in the "Above Average" category. I can't really complain about this-- I think it's an accurate reflection of my work, as I didn't do anything particularly memorable in the other 5 areas (like "Working Collaboratively," "Oral Communications," etc.) this year. But, as I said, I am now kinda screwed. I have enough seniority to apply for a significant promotion. (Basically, a "career ladder" type promotion-- a step in a progression, e.g., Assistant Bricklayer, Bricklayer, and Senior Bricklayer. I'd get a new title, higher pay, with pretty much the same duties and marginally more responsibility.) My boss knows this and has generally expressed support, leading me to believe that I would get it when I applied. But there's some fine print in the official order on promotion that he might not be aware of-- one of the necessary qualifications to apply for the promotion is to have an "Above Average" rating on at least 4 competencies on your most recent performance appraisal. Which means that I can't apply for this raise until the next appraisal cycle. (Normally, that means 1 year, but there is a provision for a mid-year assessment if the employee is applying for a promotion more than 4 months after their last performance assessment.) And it's doubly frustrating because the Order doesn't give me any credit for rating "Really Good" in the 3 categories where I did exceed the baseline rating. I got the best possible aggregate rating that a person can without meeting the promotion qualifications-- someone who gets 4 "Above Average" ratings and 4 "Lousy" ratings is eligible, and I'm not. But, given the ultra-bureaucratic environment and work culture around here, the chance of an exception being made to the rules for my case is pretty much zero. Now, if this rating reflects an honest assessment by my superiors that I'm not yet ready for this promotion, I can accept that (although some warning during the year that my work wasn't up to snuff would have been nice). But if it turns out that my supervisors just missed the fine print on the promotion qualifications and aren't yet aware that they're holding me back, I'm going to be pretty pissed. And now I have to figure out how to express this in the mandated "feedback session" in a way that doesn't sound entitled or condescending. I think I'll just say straight out, "I don't think I have grounds to complain about any of my ratings, but I am disappointed that this means that I can't apply for the [position title] promotion," and then read my boss's reaction to see if it surprises him.

I can not answer for how it is done elsewhere but that really does not happen here. State and local governments use zoning laws to determine what land can be used for to prevent things like that from happening. And they are quite good at it. It only gets screwed up when Uncle Sam sticks his finger into it. I'd dispute that one a bit. States and local governments in the U.S. can and have screwed these kinds of things up for decades, largely because ecological effects don't particularly care about jurisdictional borders. For example, Maryland has been dealing with problems in the Chesapeake similar to the ones you mentioned earlier w/r/t the Everglades. But a chief source of the agricultural runoff was coming down the Susquehanna from Pennsylvania, which didn't have much incentive to police its own farmers aggressively for the benefit of ecology and commerce outside its borders. (Rust-belt coal-fired power plants causing acid rain in the Northeast is another example that springs to mind.) Press coverage and public anger can overcome these problems by putting pressure on the states and local governments where the emissions are happening, but federal action (e.g., regulations under the Clean Water Act) is a much surer way to correct externality-based market failures like this when the externalities aren't all contained in one jurisdiction.

I never got to the Swamp in the first game. It was early in Vizima when I decided that I had given the game enough of a chance and that I'd be having more fun doing pretty much anything else. The combat was the worst of both worlds (too shallow to be tactically interesting while too easy to be twitch-game interesting), the management aspect was a chore, the level design was tedious, the characters were all unlikeable (especially the one I was playing as), none of the factions seemed worth fighting for (including the supposed buddies who the game assumed I would want to help at the beginning), and the misogyny was rather off-putting. So, yeah, it's going to take some reports of pretty impressive improvements to get me to give the sequel a try.

http://forums.obsidian.net/index.php?showforum=80

Yesterday, I had my first full phyiscal exam in about 7 years. I appear to be healthy, although my arm is sore from the tetanus shot.

Shockingly, there is some tension between the democratic ideals that underly the governments of the major Western powers and the necessity for those major international powers to project influence in other parts of the world to protect their interests and prosperity. These governments then have to either 1) learn to live with some hypocrisy, 2) get taken advantage of by less scrupulous nations, or 3) pull back their sphere of influence and be very happy that they can free-ride on the efforts of other nations to keep dangerous states contained, to discover and foil international threats before they emerge, to keep shipping lanes open, etc., etc. If transparency trumps all concerns for all democratic nations, then the western world collectively ends up in category #2, which would be a far greater setback for the ideals of modern Western democracy than all this secrecy is. Of course, in the right circumstances (e.g., disclosure of covered-up war crimes), the virtue of exposing malfeasence can certainly exceed the virtues of protecting diplomatic secrets. But these leaks ain't exactly the Pentagon Papers. They're not exposing any villains in dire need of punishment or major corruption that hasn't yet been brought to light or behavior by leaders/diplomats/warriors that runs counter to the basic assumption that they are doing their jobs in good faith and in pursuit of what they see as their nation's best interests. Add in what we can surmise about Assange's motivations from his public statements (a guesstimate ranking would be self-aggrandizement, then a desire to embarrass the U.S. as the global hegemon, and then transparency for its own sake as a democratic ideal), and it becomes tough for me to agree that leaks like this are a Good Thing for the cause of global democratic ideals.

I encountered a low-light last evening: The dialogue with the leader of the mercenaries threatening Jacobstown. One vaguely threatening dialogue choice with a speech threshold, and he packs up and goes home. That's more than just voice-acting; it's not bothering to flesh out the dialogue enough to make the outcome believable at all.

I don't see why it's not at least somewhat plausible to peacefully arrange a one-time solution to a hostage negotiation. It's not like you're making the NCR & Khans make overall peace. True, they could've made the dialogue go on for a few more screens to make it trickier or something. Resolving it peacefully is fine, and appropriate. It's the doing so by simply walking straight across the 'no man's land' between the factions, in direct view of the Khans' marksmen, fully armed, coming from a position where they had to know that the NCR sent you, with no prior communication explaining that you were there to talk.