Some Simple Rules on How to Not Annoy Me (Part 2)

Be consistent with the titling and numbering of a series that you do (ie: "Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi" is bad. "A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi" is good.)

Also, don't split infinitives.

Find the hidden jokes, win self-satisfaction for an hour.

Some Simple Rules for Science Fiction Authors Looking Not to Annoy Me (Part 1)

There are a number of unwritten rules about science fiction and fantasy which generally require adherence in order to make the story acceptable to an audience. These rules are different between the two seemingly dissimilar genres, but it's consistent application of one set or the other that helps a reader (or watcher) understand the universe he's learning about. For fantasy, nearly anything goes. An author may, at his whim, dictate any rule he so desires and give it no more explanation than "because that's the way it is." Who does this and does it well in the small sampling of his books that I've read? Terry Pratchett. His Discworld series is zany, wacky, inexplicably weird — and it doesn't matter. Whatever he says goes, and that's good enough for the reader. That doesn't mean that a fantasy author is required to invent all sorts of crazy rules; it just means that they're free to.

A word of note: in fiction, the author has absolute say over what happens. It's his universe, his characters, and his rules. What follows is my opinion of how best to structure some of those rules so as not to annoy me. I don't consider myself an author, I don't have the patience to learn to write, and I respect those who try. I also acknowledge that every one of the "rules" I am about to write is a guideline that absolutely may be broken at the author's discretion. But I implore you to please take the time to give a really good reason for it. Don't just do it because it's convenient for the script. If you want to make arbitrary rules of how your universe works then you may want to consider fantasy writing instead of science fiction. There's plenty of fantasy that looks like science fiction (ever hear of this little series of movies, TV shows, books, comic books, and cereals called Star Wars? That's classic fantasy (unexplained arbitrary rules and all) if ever I've seen it.

The problems that I've found with storytelling arise when science fiction authors try to invent arbitrary rules that conflict with common sense, science, experience, etc. For example, the arbitrarily small and finite number of universes in the abysmal Jet Li movie The One. It doesn't make any sense that the multiverse is composed of some finite small (I forget, but I think it was around 25) number of universes. The most rational explanation for multiple universes is that each one is different from the others in at least one small way, but since our universe is so big, it only makes sense that there be a ridiculously large number (infinitely, actually) of immensely tiny things to change. For example, the only difference between our universe and another one out there at this point in time is the direction that a single particle in the upper atmosphere of the earth moved. Now, that difference will chain-reaction into many other differences. That particle will now interact with different particles in the two universes. The differences will branch out as all of those particles are interacting with different particles causing a completely different configuration of atmosphere particles in the different universes. This can cause different weather patterns in the future, meaning that perhaps hundreds or even thousands of years after the initial microscopic change, a macroscopic difference can be observed between the two. Now imagine all of the air particles in the atmosphere and all of the different directions that they can move at any given time. Then imagine how there's a universe spawned for each of the possibilities of each of those particles every instant. Then imagine that at the same time, there's a universe spawned for each pair of possibilities, each triplet, and so on. Then take it a step further and think about every single particle in the entire universe. Every instant. While you were comprehending the meaning of the period at the end of this sentence (something that usually takes a practically immeasurably small amount of time), an uncountably infinite number of so-called "alternate" universes spawned which are visually identical to our own, aside from the uncountably infinite number of ones which spawned that are macroscopically different. This is only considering the universes which spawn off of our own, of course. Remember that each of the universes is spawning its own uncountably infinite number of universes every instant. Is this absolute observed scientific fact? No, but it's the only rational (albeit dramatically simplified) explanation of multiple universes that I've ever read. If you're going to have parallel universes in your story that's fine (this is fiction after all), but don't arbitrarily dictate that there's some finite number of universes out there without giving a really good explanation for it.

More importantly, one should realize that there's absolutely no practical way to, by human means, revert the changes. How is it that you can force all of the air particles in Universe B (the universe that isn't "ours," but is the "alternate" universe in question) to have the exact same configuration (position, orientation, velocity, and energy) as Universe A at corresponding time-points? Any attempt at meddling is sure to only exacerbate the problem leading to more profound and macroscopically observable differences. This shows up in time-travel stories. I want you to consider something: when your characters travel into the past (or send something into the past, or somehow affect the past), they're either going to affect the past or they're not. What they're not going to do is affect the past, then fix it somehow so that nothing's affected. As a trivial example of a story that (in its own way) did this right, I give you the first Back to the Future movie. Marty went back and screwed everything up. Then he tried to fix it, but in the end, the universe that he ended up in was fundamentally different than the one he came from. It turned out that the differences were pleasant for him, so he liked it. The story offers that it was plausible that he be able to fix everything to be exactly the same as the universe he came from, but we know that's impossible because Marty's presence in the past caused, if nothing else, the configuration of the atmosphere to be different. No matter what, the universe he would go to would be different than the one he came from. Another story that dealt with time-travel in a very good way (in this critic's humble opinion) is the Millennium trilogy of Deep Space Nine novels by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens. In there, characters from the future affect past events, but they're present in the "first incarnation" of past events. Thus, they don't change the past because they're always elements of the past. Similarly, in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, the main characters go into the past and have a conversation with themselves. But this doesn't change the past, it fulfills it because the conversation was first observed from their past selves.

There's more I can write on this topic (I have many many things I can tell you about ways you can avoid annoying me, whether you're a SciFi author or not), but I think this will do for now. Please, take this, digest it, and start to think about some of the stories you've read or watched (or written?) in a more critical light.

This post brought to you by the terrible atrocity that is The One and the annoyance it has generated in me which has persisted for the past seven years or so.

The Importance of Being Christian

I've had a few conversations in the recent past (recent past being that period of time between whenever "now" is for any given point of time and whenever "now" was at the time I posted in the blog three posts ago. If I blogged daily, then the recent past would be in the last 3 days. As it stands now...the recent past started about 4 months ago) which were trying to figure out why it's important to me that a significant other in my life be Christian. Either that or I imagined that these conversations happened (a very likely possibility. My memory over the last 4 months isn't perfect, and it's prone to invent conversations).
While driving home the other day, the reason hit me. I mean, it's never been an issue that was a question for me. I know that "she" (whomever "she" might be, someone I currently know or someone I haven't yet met) is, she'd have to be Christian, but it's important that I be able to explain to others why this is.
The easiest way I found to explain it is to just phrase some hypotheticals. Imagine that you met the woman¹ of your dreams, but she completely refuses to acknowledge the existence of your dad². Now, I'm not saying that she ignores him or that she doesn't like him, but that she simply is convinced that he doesn't exist. She may put on airs that it's okay that you have conversations on the phone with him, she's polite (but condescending) when the two of you have dinner with your parents. She enjoys talking to your mother, but when any of you discuss Dad, she starts to look uncomfortable as though you're talking about an imaginary friend.
When Dad (who's right there at the table with you) tries to talk to her, she's oblivious.
Somehow, this situation is completely absurd when discussed in these terms, but when it comes to Christianity, non-Christians seem to puzzle over the fact that Christians can't seem to be bigoted and/or biased against people who refuse to subscribe to this "crazy notion" that God exists, interacts with us daily, and is a very real part of our day-to-day lives. I don't see where the puzzlement is. If those two people try to build a relationship, at the foundation is this part of each person which thinks (at best) that the other one is fundamentally crazy. And not the good kind of crazy.

¹I'm a guy and a chauvinist at that. My writing follows the absolutely "horrid" trend of using masculine pronouns instead of the socially-correct-but-stylistically-abhorrent "him or her" or even worse "s/he"-type constructs. I'm also going to write as though you're me and let you do the work of substituting the appropriate other characters/situations/whatever.

²Everyone has someone in his or her life who is important to the person. It could be a relative or a good friend (or both). Whatever, it's not important. For sake of ease-of-writing, I'm going to refer to this person as "Dad." Replace this character with whomever makes sense for you.

"I don't know if you want to know, but..."

I hate hearing things that start this way. Well, that's not fair. I just cringe when I hear that opening. The problem is that sometimes I do want to know and other times I don't. The only way to tell is to hear it, unfortunately. Then, after I decide that it's something I didn't want to hear, it's pretty easy to just go back in time to let the person telling me this story know that he can go merrily upon his way without letting me be any the wiser.

So I don't actually intend for every other post on this blog to be about her. It just ends up that way - probably because she's still about the only thing that can really motivate me to have something to say, write it up, and then post it. I think this one's going up because I at least half-hope she'll read it. I don't know if she'll want to read it, but...well, she can always go back in time to tell herself how stupid of an idea it is if she finds out later that she didn't.

So the rest of the story was, "...she called me last night." At this point I shrug. What does it matter to me if she calls people? It's something she does frequently. I know it. Heck, I encouraged it. Both in her and in the people I know. I have a lot of good friends. I could still be a good friend if it weren't for the fact that my heart is still so sunk into her that I couldn't *ONLY* be a friend. It's the largest single reason why I enforce a separation between us, no matter why she thinks it is that I don't want anything to do with her. Anyway, like I said, I have a lot of good friends and I couldn't see any good reason for her not to be friends with them too. They all know not to invite us to the same events, so it's fine.

"She was in an accident last night." Oh. Now I start to feel bad about the shrug. It's not that I don't care. Quite the opposite. I think it's fair to say that I care more about her than I ever have about any person ever. That's present tense - I *still* care for her more than I ever *have* cared for any person ever. That says a lot, both about how I still feel for her, and also about the general apathy towards people that I seem to continually find myself in. It's not like I don't live with this huge list of things I know need improvement.

For a long time, I've tossed around scenarios in my head. What would happen if one of us were to die? Would the other be invited to the funeral? Would the other *GO*? Would the other have anything to say? Stupid stuff like that. Personally, I don't care what she would choose to do. I mean, I don't care who wants to come to my funeral or what their reasons are. By the time such decisions have to be made, I'll be beyond the point of caring. Hopefully someone would let her know (I can think of at least 2 who would make a point to), and hopefully someone would let her know she's welcome to come (since I've never talked with this to anyone, I don't know if that'd happen or not). Would I go to hers? I don't know. Thankfully that's not a decision I have to make this morning.

"Was it anything serious?" "A few broken bones, I think her pelvis and spine were damaged, but the doctors said it wasn't anything weight-bearing so there shouldn't be any permanent damage." Well, that's a relief. I mean, it's not as if our relationship ended on what can be termed a "happy" note, but I certainly don't wish her ill. I don't know if she's still the same person I fell in love with, but I know I'm not the same person she did.

Anyway, having that conversation this morning with a friend as he picks up his laptop to head to Michigan to start another school year...a bit surreal. To her, I say "Get better." Maybe more to write will come later.

Questions from Readers!

Let's take a moment to address some questions that readers have sent in! Yes, that means that you too can send me a question and it may very well be responded to within your lifetime!

If he created all things perfect, if humans are perfect creations, why do we suffer? Why is there suffering? If God had a master plan, and knew any and everything that would ever happen, if he knew every thought anyone would ever have... why did he still build us to suffer?

Wow, this is a big question. And it's one that people have been wrestling with for centuries. I don't expect to be able to provide a definitive answer that everyone will find satisfactory tonight. If you expect that out of me...well, you must assume I'm even more awesome than I do, and that's quite an accomplishment.

First, what is perfection? Is it really as simple as "being without flaw"? How would one know the difference between a flaw and a feature? If all humans have a certain characteristic (say, a tendency to lie when they believe they can get away with it), then can you correctly classify that as a flaw? Perhaps it's an intended design element. (I'm going to always write as though humans are in fact designed. It's not my place to argue for design vs. random happenstance. There are people who know biology, probability, history, archeology, and so many other things of importance much better than me much better suited to such arguments. I have been convinced of design, and I will only speak from that background.)

The response to that question (How can we know whether these characteristics of humans are "bugs" or "features?") lies in the pattern from which humans were created. We were created in the "image of God,¹" meaning that much of who we are comes from Who He is. Whatever characteristics of our character don't match with His are flaws.

That's just a little something to start with for what it means to be perfect. In God's image, having His characteristics.

Of course, one of the characteristics of God is His free will. He has the power, the right, and the authority to do anything He wants. In loving us and desiring to be truly loved BY us, He empowered us with the same ability. However, we do not have the right or the authority to do whatever we want, simply the power to do so. Much like a child has the power to disobey his parents, even when he doesn't have the right or the authority to do so.

A long time ago, someone exercised this power in a way contrary to God's design. God allowed this because in loving His creation, He allowed it the freedom to exercise its power, even when that hurt Him. I am inclined to believe (though I have no theological proof for it) that this effected a genetic change (mutation, if you will) from what humanity was created as into something slightly different. Theologically, this is known as "Original Sin" - the concept that humans are born (conceived, actually) with sin as an aspect of their existence, separated from God by that sin. This is certainly a spiritual matter, but I would not be surprised at all to learn that there were measurable physical biological side effects. Unfortunately, we don't have Adam's pre-sin genetic code somewhere in a database to compare.

(Side note for some people who may perhaps read this: I do not hold this as some fundamental aspect of my faith. This is merely an explanation/rationalization I have concocted to explain phenomena I have observed. It may be wrong, it's not as if there's Biblical statements to the effect that man's genetic code was altered by sin, or if there are, I haven't interpreted them as such.)

But, to bring things back to the question originally posed, humans were not created to suffer. Humans were created to enjoy communion with God. Humans chose to separate themselves from God. It's our choice to operate outside of how we were designed which creates suffering. That choice was available to us because true love cannot exist without that choice.

Your Love...

By Darrell Evans:

Your love is extravagant
Your friendship, intimate
I find I'm moving to the rhythms of Your grace
Your fragrance is intoxicating in our secret place
Your love is extravagant

Spread wide in the arms of Christ
Is the love that covers sin
No greater love have I ever known
For You considered me a friend
Captured my heart again

Your love has given me a freedom
Like I've never known
And Your love is bringing me home

Your love is extravagant
Your love is extravagant

I love what You're doing in me, Lord
And I'm thankful, Lord
What You're doing in my heart
You're changing me, changing me...

Deeper than the deepest ocean
Higher than the highest mountain
Reaches higher than the heavens
And still it finds its way to me...

And You're patient, Lord
And You're kind to me
Though I'm failing You sometimes
Your love never has failed me

Sometimes at points in life I don't know what to say or do. So when I have sufficient presence of mind, I put on a song. Sometimes I just give it back to God, sometimes I write the words down to help me see what's actually there. (I've got a notebook here with plenty of these scribblings - though I doubt anybody but I could easily read it.) This week has been one of those times where I see in life how much I've put my dependence for so many things on people where that should be placed in God.

The first time I sat down and read Judges, I was incredulous. It's the story of Israel under the direction of a series of judges over the course of a few hundred years. There were several judges at a time in power in Israel - each one had authority over some region. Under God, these judges were the highest authority in the land. It was their job to finish the task that Joshua had begun, clearing the land of the people that God told them to drive out.

The part about the story that left me incredulous was the continual fluctuations between prosperity and depravity. Consistently the Israelites would fall into sin, and then a righteous judge would lead them out of it. While in sin, they would experience the consequences of that sin. When led out of it, they experienced the prosperity, success, and they flourished as God had promised that they would. The part that I couldn't understand was how they could go through so many of these cycles so fast. Reading the book, it's clear that within a single generation the people would fall into and be raised out of sin multiple times. I asked how a people could be so stupid as to forget how God rewards righteousness and how sin results in misery.

I could ask the same question of myself now. How does it happen? Gradually. With small compromises. With apathy.

That last one...apathy. That is probably the most underrated sin in the world. It's not hate that's the opposite of love. Apathy is. It's written (in Scripture, no less) that God would prefer someone be actively opposed to Him than that the person simply not care. When You're the omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe Who has empowered a piece of that creation with the choice to love or hate, it's obvious that He would prefer we love (one another and Him). If that Creator would have preferred His creation to hate Him, then it seems reasonable that He hates them - and why create something that He hates and let it continue its meager existence making Him miserable?

God gave us this choice to decide whether to love him or to despise him. Being a God of love, He has created a home for both groups of people. In one (termed Heaven), humanity will know intimacy with God unlike anything we've ever imagined. We'll no more be His equals than a 2-year-old is the equal of his parents, but the relationship will be similar. For those who have chosen disdain over love, God provides a home as well. It's the only place in the universe where He shields His presence, allowing the people there isolation from His presence. This is what Hell is. It's not some burning pit with a demonic overlord who takes joy in the plight of all the captives. Hell was created as a home for those demons who felt that they could aspire to the position of Almighty. No piece of humanity was ever intended for Hell, but to bring a person into Heaven who isn't in love with God would be more of a punishment to them than Hell would be.

This all relates back to that apathy thing, I swear.

Because humanity was never intended to go to Hell, but because we made choices that alienated us from our Creator, and because He loved us so much, He enacted a plan to provide escape. He took on the guise of an ordinary human, but lived a life fully honoring to the Father. From birth until crucifixion, Jesus lived His life under the exact same power that every human on this planet has access to. He did it by living a life in harmony with the will of the Spirit, continually in communion (not the bread & wine ceremony, but "state of communing") with the Father. He was fully God in every way, but He suppressed his divinity to provide a perfect example of how we should live our lives. This resulted in a death of significant pain, indignity, and misery inflicted upon Him by all humanity. He did that because He loved us so much that He was willing to endure absolutely anything if only one person would use that to spend eternity with Him.

How can one look at that with apathy? You can look at it as a myth if you want (though nobody can reasonably deny that a man named Jesus lived and died in this manner - there's far too much evidence to deny that). You can claim that the tales of the supernatural in the Bible are just stories that don't have relevance today. If you do that, then you would have to look down your nose in derision at this man Jesus who went to a very painful death for no reason at all except maybe some mental deficiency which convinced him that he was the son of a nonexistent god. At the very least you would have to scoff him. After all, who would hold someone in high esteem who stepped in front of a runaway train to stop it with his bare hands before it careened off the side of a cliff? Is that a mark of honor or abject stupidity?

If that man is the Son of the One True God and is capable of successfully stopping the runaway train with his bare hands, and He does do so - who would react with apathy? Who would look at that and just not care?

How is it that people have been convinced that it's perfectly natural to be apathetic towards God? There isn't anything more unnatural I can think of. Either God is the One most worthy of our adoration and love or his existence is a myth that only serves to stagnate our culture.

More ramblies! Yay!

Some fun things I found on the internet today:

Double Fine Productions' News page (there are some really hilarious entries in here - especially if you've played the excellent Psychonauts)
Double Fine Productions' Job Openings page (it gets pretty funny towards the end)
GrumpyGamer (Ron Gilbert's blog)

Ok, so after those two random but yet semi-related links, I present the following: Introspection. Today I realized that I haven't much talked about any of the peculiarities about myself that I have observed set me apart from how it seems other people act/think, but that may not be apparent from merely observing me. First, I would like to point out that I have obsessive-compulsive tendencies. It's not debilitating, I'm not Monk (in terms of level of condition or genius), and I've never suffered from it - but it does affect me. For example, I have a very strong (but not absolute) aversion to stepping on cracks in the sidewalk. Unless something is actively drawing my attention away from my footsteps, I will make significant effort to pace my stride in such a way as to look natural and avoid the cracks. If for some reason I become conscious that I'm doing this, I usually continue to do it while chuckling at my own silliness, but I have been known (even today) to consciously step on a crack. I've heard of my mother's back suffering no ill effects.

I count steps. Usually in multiples of four or twelve. If the bell tower is chiming, I count the number of steps I take between tolls - I try to time my steps so that I have exactly ten. There's nothing special about ten except that it's the number of steps I naturally take in that period, I simply attempt to adjust the cadence of my footsteps so that the tenth step falls exactly at the time of the bell. When counting my steps in multiples of four or twelve, I'm simply counting to myself "one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four" over and over. Rarely do I keep track of how many times I count to four or twelve. Also, I count the number of steps in a flight of stairs. I am annoyed to no end when confronted with sequential flights of stairs which do not have the same number of steps - ESPECIALLY when the difference is an even number (usually 2). Why didn't the designer simply move one step from the flight with more stairs to the flight with fewer? Then they'd have the same number of steps. Then I could count to the same number both times. *sigh* Some things I may never know.

I cannot wear long sleeves without wearing long pants. It makes me feel top-heavy. Of course, this rarely is a problem because I am rarely without long pants (and when I am, there's probably no good reason to have long sleeves on), but still it's something that I have noticed. A friend of mine (some of you know him as Uthalinus, others perhaps as Jerm) used to regularly wear shorts with a sweatshirt. I would boggle at that because I could not under any circumstance imagine voluntarily choosing that outfit for myself. Clothing has a hierarchy - shirts are dependent upon shorts or pants (it is improper to don one's shirt before one's shorts or pants), long sleeves are dependent upon long pants, and also: long sleeves should not ever be worn unless there is a short-sleeved shirt underneath. You will rarely find me breaking any of these conventions.

And, in case you're curious for any reason - I won't be found existing in the state of shorts or pants without a shirt. That is simply a temporary state that I go through when getting dressed or undressed (the shirt comes on first, goes off last). Some may prescribe these things to "habit" - but I consider it to be stronger than habit. "Habit" is which sock I put on first. I actually don't know which one I put on first. I probably put one on first more often than the other (probably by a significant amount), but I don't know which one it is. If I were conscious of the order I normally do it in and reversed it, it wouldn't seem odd to me at all. That is not at all how these other things feel - there is something in my mind that compels me to obey these very arbitrary principles. I can break it if I choose to do so, but I rarely do because I rarely have any non-arbitrary reason to do so and I am overly conscious of being in violation of my own arbitrary rules - and that distracts me from whatever it is that I'm trying to do with my life at any given moment.

So...there you have it. Paragraphs of my personal quirks. Enjoy.

Because today is like Wednesday...sorta...

Do you own a wall calendar?
Yes, I do. In fact, I own several. I have several Star Wars themed calendars, a Beatles calendar, and probably several others. I doubt I've taken any of them out of their shrink-wrap. I just like to have them for some reason. I also have several daily calendars (of the tear-off variety). I don't use any of those either. I'm rapidly approaching the point where I have a calendar for all 14 "types" of year. (One where January 1st is on Sunday, Monday, etc. - and then one each of those that's a leap year). It's doubtful that I'll ever actually use any of them.

Is there a cuisine that you have not tried, but want to?
I don't think so. I'm not one who actively seeks variety. If there's something I haven't tried (cuisine-wise especially), then odds are that I'm going to be quite happy letting it pass me by if the opportunity arises to sample it.

Weirdest thing you enjoy eating (what most people you know do not eat or enjoy)?
Well, this one's a bit weird. Eh, I guess that's no surprise to anybody reading this. It's also related to my previous answer. Every week after service, my church back home gets together at a house (usually my parents' house because we've got all kinds of room for stuff and kids and things) and has a potluck lunch. Something that my father and I just noticed recently is that my mother has about...15? 20? Some reasonably small number of dishes that she makes for our meals and very very rarely do any get added to that number. For this, my father and I are very thankful. (Eating at my aunt's house can be an adventure because she just...invents foods out of the ether and that's just weird.) Anyway, because of this, I'm used to a reasonably small number of "safe" foods. When potluck happens every week, I'm exposed to this table full of all sorts of things from people that (I'm assured) are quite good cooks. However, their food doesn't look particularly safe to me most of the time - so I tend to go for the safer foods. This leads to a trend where I eat things that are:

1. white or yellow (for some reason, white foods are almost always safe. Mashed potatoes, corn chips, corn, cornbread, burritos, dumplings, rice, macaroni & cheese, etc.)
   
2. simply composed of meat (like a slice of ham or a Salisbury steak patty - not a casserole or a stew)

Because most people tend to ignore the meat (or because I usually eat it first), I get tagged as always eating white/yellow foods. This is because people don't see me eating the (usually) safe foods that we have at family meals where a broader spectrum is utilized.

Anyway, one year somebody decided to really play up this joke for all it was worth...so my school hosted a lunch for my 17th birthday party. The theme was white & yellow. All foods, decorations, and most people's clothing was following that color scheme.

I've gotta say - it was one of the safest meals I've ever eaten.

I can't believe...

I read the whole thing.

Something I just remembered recently...

I like to listen to things while I drive. Music is good, but when I'm on a long car trip, what helps keep me stimulated is a conversation. Usually when I'm making a long car trip, though, I'm either alone or the other person/people in the car are sleeping. They tend to make poor conversationalists. So, I make do with talk radio, it's the next best thing. Back home I nearly always have access to a great talk-radio station: KFI AM 640 (More Stimulating Talk Radio). Recently (like..4 years ago) they started broadcasting their shows over the internet allowing me to listen any time I'm at a computer that's connected to a decent internet connection. (That doesn't include my connection from school).

Anyway, last week and this week I found myself alone in a car driving from or to Dallas respectively. That's about 2 hours of time - perfect to cram in a podcasted radio show. So I pulled up the most interesting one I knew of and dropped it on the iPod. It's different...it seems wrong in so many ways...and the first reaction I get from most people that I tell about it is something along the lines of, "Are you serious?"

Anyway, the premise of the show is that it's hosted by Jesus. It's strange that a secular radio station known mostly for having idiot (though entertaining) hosts whose major vocations are standing outside the governor's office and yelling at him with a megaphone (I'm talking about you, John & Ken) would produce a show like this...and it's even stranger that it's actually taken seriously by many Christians. What it is not is religiously fluffy, obtuse, or impractical. What it is is down to earth, realistic, practical, and tasteful. It's the Jesus Christ show on KFI (6am to 9am on Sunday mornings Pacific time), and it's also available via podcast. I have modified the KFI Sunday podcast to only list the Jesus Christ shows. The link is on the right. I'll try to keep that file updated, though sometimes I may forget.

But back to the show itself, it's a 3 hour segment of time (which works out to just under 2 hours of actual show-time thanks to commercials) where callers can ask Jesus (okay, it's actually just an ordinary guy who is playing the role of Jesus) any question at all. Some of the callers are Christians wanting some insight into a theological issue. Some of the callers aren't Christian but would like to know what Jesus actually thinks about something.

Is the host perfect? Of course not. If you talked to him outside the context of the show I'm certain that he'd agree with that statement. Within the show, though, he never breaks character, is always portraying the role of a loving God trying to help his children make sense of the world they're in. If you find yourself looking for a way to kill a couple of hours and you could stand to listen to some talk-radio, I'd heartily recommend listening to this. No matter what, everything he has to say is quite reasonable, logical, sensible, and practical.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of a Podcast, know that it's simply an RSS feed that contains at its essence a series of links to MP3 files that you can download. The name stems from the fact that it integrates easily with the iPod, but you certainly don't need one to listen to them. If you like to use iTunes, you can easily use that to retrieve podcasts by copying the URL for the Podcast to the clipboard, then in iTunes go to Advanced->Subscribe to Podcast. Just paste the URL there and it'll download the files, keep track of your place listening to them, and keep track of which ones you've already listened to for you.

Alternatively, you can use just about any other RSS reader. For example, if you use Firefox 2 (or later), it includes the concept of a "Live Bookmark" built in. Just clicking on the link will prompt you to create a Live Bookmark which you can then use in your Bookmarks section like any ordinary bookmark folder. The difference is that the Live Bookmark will automatically update itself as the file you used to subscribe to it is updated. In other words, new content will automatically be added. The biggest downside to this feature (in my mind, at least) is that it doesn't keep track of which ones you've already read/listened to.

Finally, I would like to report my progress on my Mountain Dew can structure thing. You can view said progress here.

*sigh*

I have to say...I miss home. Just look at the differences here!

By "popular" request...

I've had a few questions from my readers that they must know the answers to! In a blatant effort to artificially inflate my post count, I'll be responding to these over the course of several posts. Maybe I'll make this a regular Wednesday thing! I need to put that label to use, after all.

Have you ever tried to roller skate?
Why yes, I have. I haven't just tried, but I'm actually halfway decent at it, or at least I was the last time I tried. The roads at home don't particularly lend themselves to roller skating (they're paved with this nasty jagged rock substance that kills your knees - either as shock absorbers or if you fall), but I've had the opportunity to go to several roller-skating rinks over the years. The last time I was on skates, I even managed to teach myself to successfully skate backwards! I am proficient on skates and on Rollerblades^® (I still own a pair), but I definitely prefer the flexibility of the in-line skates to the traditional style.

What is one thing you wish you could do with your hair?
Convince it to stop growing and to stay where I tell it. I like the hairstyle I have, I've had it since I was 16 (I adopted it in August of 1999) and it's suited me well.

What are 5 things that you think everyone should do before they die?

1. I think everyone should come face-to-face with the truth of Christianity and make an informed, intelligent decision to accept it as the supreme absolute truth in the universe or reject it as absolutely false, a delusional fairy tale. They must realize that there is no middle-ground. My preference is, of course, that they decide to adopt it for themselves, but I have faith that everyone who is confronted with the truth (and not some bastardization of it) will make the correct choice.
2. I think everyone should work a job in customer service, retail sales, foodservice, or a related low-wage job emphasizing customer interaction where the customer will often treat you as a cog in the great machine. Everyone needs to learn to accept this treatment but rise above it to prove their worth to the company, their usefulness to the customer, and that their common position does not make them into a common person.
3. Find a cause whose goals you support (not one that convinces you to support it or a cause that found you) and wholeheartedly work to bring its goals to fruition. Never commit to the group unconditionally, but always be aware of the goals of the group and support them while their goals and yours are aligned.
4. Attend a concert to realize how much better the real thing is than a recording.
5. Learn the differences between "you're" and "your;" "their," "they're," and "there;" and "it's" and "its."
   

That was Friday and this is Tuesday...

Ok, so this weekend I finally played through the expansion to Warcraft 3. It's only...just under 4 years old. I only pre-ordered the Collectors' Edition of Warcraft 3 and played through it in 3 days (and loved it) and then waited for 3 years after the release of the expansion to buy it and several more months to play it. I don't make cents. I'm not a mint. If I were a mint, I'd make scents. What's that? Suddenly this all stopped making sense? Maybe sleep isn't as overrated as some say it is.

Anyway, I give props to Blizzard for making a most intriguing expansion to an excellent game. Warcraft 3 was a good, solid single-player RTS (though I never really got much into multiplayer), and the expansion added all sorts of interesting twists.

In keeping with tradition....

I figured I'd throw another random blabby post up because I can. I've been told that I do it well. And at least one reader has complained that it's what my blog consists of - quantity over quality. I'd hate to change just because one reader complains, though, so I'm just going to use his bandwidth to host...

My first-ever Warcraft 3 victory replay file!

Requires: War3 1.21 w/Expansion

For those who don't know...

I am Troldann. Well, I'm not actually, but I once played the character of Troldann in the wildly popular MMORPG (massively multiplayer online roleplaying game) World of Warcraft (or WoW). That's him there on the left. You'll note that the text behind his head is "Retired." That's the polite way of saying that he's dead.

Again.

Yeah, well, he sort of has this habit of dying a lot. It's a bit of a joke. So we couldn't just say "deceased" or something like that because it wasn't as meaningful. He'd just get up again anyway. Regardless, my point is that I no longer play him and I thought that maybe I'd take a few moments to talk about it. If you're hoping that this is going to be one of those posts that comes down on the evils of MMOs or talks about how horrible video games are at sucking your life, then you're going to be disappointed. MMOs aren't any more evil than ink pens or scissors or baseball bats or guns. They are generally more addictive than any of those 4 things, but that doesn't make them evil - merely something that one needs to learn how to control.

Some people don't know how to control their addictions. I'm one of those people. That is why Troldann retired (permanently. He's been deleted from the server, irrecoverably lost). I have a highly addictive personality. When I find something I enjoy, I sink all of my energy into it and I don't look back. Unfortunately, I don't enjoy school and I did (do) enjoy World of Warcraft. That meant that all of my time was being poured into the virtual world of WoW (which does contain a lot of very nice, neat, interesting, fascinating, fun, and very very real people) and none was being poured into things of slightly more immediate consequence. Like grades.

It was so bad that there was only one event which could be guaranteed to pull me away from the game and that one event happened about 4 times in the last semester. I don't expect it to ever happen again. What was that one thing? A phone call from a certain person, but that's not important. What is important is that I had a moment of clarity where I realized that I was running from life and I was using a video game to do it. I needed to stop running, so I did the most sensible thing possible which was to turn the game off. 5 years from now, it won't matter that I got Troldann to level 60 with the full Virtuous set. It won't matter that I also got another priest to level 60 or that I cleared Molten Core as a healing priest twice a week with two different groups.

Yeah, I'm insane. I told you that when I find something I enjoy, I pour all of my energy into it.

Anyway, if those things won't matter in 5 years when World of Warcraft is old news (or maybe it'll take 7 or 8 or whatever before the game is replaced by its sequel or successor), then they probably don't really matter all that much right now. That is why I could delete the characters and not look back. They don't matter.

That isn't to say that I think the game is worthless or evil. Quite the contrary, it provides something to many people that they otherwise couldn't get. Many people have an ability which I strongly envy. That is the ability to indulge in pleasures with moderation. They can find something they like and partake of it when it's appropriate. I tend to invent new moments of appropriateness and supplement those with the old moments of appropriateness and soon there are no moments of inappropriateness. These people will indulge in an hour or three in an evening of playing a game with a group of people that they've cultivated a relationship online with.

Now, think about what they would have been doing with that time 5 years ago before World of Warcraft existed. Well, my parents don't play video games, so I'll use them as a comparison. They go out to eat (either at a friend's house or at a restaurant) or invite someone else over to eat maybe once a week. Two or three nights a week are dedicated to church functions. The other 3 or 4 days a week, they watch TV for one to three hours in the evening. Sometimes they watch TV on the days when they did other stuff also, since my parents will frequently stay up until about 10pm watching TV, but rarely will they be socially engaged past 8pm.

So, instead of spending a couple of hours watching TV as husband and wife, imagine if the two of them got online and spent a couple of hours working together to tackle some fictional obstacle with a couple in Kentucky that they'd never have met without the random matchmaking that exists within the realm of online gaming. What's that, you say? That's not a real relationship because they never meet face-to-face (or F2F)? Well, perhaps it's not the sort of relationship where these would be the first people that my mother would call if my dad was in a car wreck, but it's no less of a relationship built upon a common interest. Sometimes, given enough time (and sufficient maturity among all parties), the relationships can develop to a friendship stronger than a simple, "See you online next week." I'm far from advocating abandoning so-called "real-life" friendships for online substitutes, but when one can successfully supplement one's close-range relationships with some online ones, where's the harm?

All of these things presuppose a few basics, though. First, one should have a strong network of close-range ties which one does not abandon, neglect, or preempt for the online ones. Second, one needs the strength of will and/or character necessary to know when a good time to play is and to stop when that time has passed (that there was/is my weakness). Third, you need the maturity to recognize that these digital textured polygon meshes you see on-screen represent actual human beings which are no less complicated, interesting, and unique than you are. All too often immature players (maturity and age do not necessarily go together, by the way. I've seen a broad range of maturity across all ages) will treat people they meet online as though they were no different than the Combine forces. (For the record, those of the Combine are controlled by algorithms and calculations performed inside the computer, not by other people.)

Well, this has been yet another rambly long-winded preachy post by me, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: there is a lot of good possible within the realms so commonly labeled as "evil," "addictive," "pointless," and "childish." It's not for everybody, and many people will never understand how it's possible to develop a friendship with somebody you've never met and possibly never even heard the voice of, but it happens every day. To those capable of gaming responsibly, enjoy that world which is opened to you. Since I had to choose one or the other, I decided to go with the one that had better graphics, more tangible progression, and fewer clipping glitches. Were I able to sample both worlds, that would be fantastic, but it's not for me.

Enjoy your worlds. I'll just hang out here where the written word can serve as my new outlet.

Upgrades!

So someone just offered to mail me his old motherboard, processor, video cards, and RAM. That's like...a massive upgrade. 64bit AMD FX64, dual GeForce 7800s....mmmm, sweet computer. I decided that though I'd love to have the upgrade, it would be better if it were waiting for me at home.

a) I'd spend less time fiddling with trying to get everything working and benchmarked and whatnot while I'm doing school.
b) I don't actually have any real legitimate use for an upgrade at this point in time
c) Having it waiting for me at home would be a huge nice thing so that I can leave most of my computer here at school and just bring home my hard drive. I've been trying to figure out how I was going to deal with the logistics of getting this thing home at the end of the school year since this'll be the first summer that I fly home without anybody driving the route for me to send my computer with.

Thank you Mr. Person-who-gives-me-free-stuff!