The Boidosphere

So Sony announced special reduced pricing for the PS3 in Japan, as well as an HDMI port for the 20 gig model. No love for US fans, but that is to be expected. Sony is king in Japan and they really want to put a nail in Microsoft's coffin. My personal opinion is that this fight isn't going to be fought on price (Microsoft could almost certainly afford to go yen-for-yen with Sony on price reductions), nor on hardware (both consoles have the poop to support great games, though the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD issue is certainly pertinent).

I've thought for a long time that it's the services - namely, Xbox Live and whatever-Sony-is-calling-it (I'm sure it's on IGN somewhere; I just haven't read all the articles) - that are going to be key. Microsoft has an enormous advantage in this area, with several years' experience under its belt and a very mature, robust, and well-liked service already available. If Sony doesn't pull out one of the most amazing v1.0 service releases in history, they might find that even Japanese consumers will ignore price cuts in favor of a superior online gaming experience.

Those of us who've been on Xbox Live since beta might not always realize just how cool the whole service is nowadays. I mean, at the top of this blog sits my Xbox Live Gamercard, a click on which will allow you to see the games I've played, compare achievements, send me a message (retrievable on the web or on my Xbox 360), etc. Soon I'll be able to play a game on my Xbox 360, pause it, and pick it up on my PocketPC. Downloadable news, demos, themes, gamer pictures, and full games? Check. Micropayments, leaderboards, tournaments, video chat? Got it.

Can Sony put all of that together during the "lauch window"? Color me doubtful...

I call it "jibber-jabber" because I know the 2 readers who ever visit here are more Xbox people than followers of world events. But just in case you get a wild hair, I think these articles are worth reading:

The evolution of the perception of Iran's threat to the US
Applying the "Lessons of History" to Iran
Harry Reid comments on Rumsfeld's recent "critics of the President hate fredom" rhetoric

Irony is President Bush vetoing legislation that would allow embryonic research while surrounded by so-called "snowflake families", whose children - implanted as embryos into surrogate mothers - wouldn't exist without...substantial...uh...embryonic research. Does he think in-vitro fertilization came about without federally-funded research, including many millions of destroyed "humans"? Does he think the technology was handed down to scientists by God? Hmm...I'm not certain how rhetorical that question actually is...

I understand that Bush didn't authorize the funding for the research that led to in-vitro fertilization. Possibly he would have, given the chance, vetoed the legislation which authorized that research as well. But if using embryos for scientific research is "murder", isn't it hypocritical to use as his "poster children" (literally) kids whose very existence owes to similar "murders" in the past? If he actually had some sort of deep-set belief on the issue, he would at most acknowledge that the beautiful children around him were a blessing, but the manner in which they were conceived was based on a history of embryonic genocide. I'd completely disagree with him, but at least he'd be intellectually honest with himself and the public (something I'm convinced he's incapable of).

Here's a thought experiment: an in-vitro fertilization clinic is on fire. In the freezer there are 10,000 embryos, and in the lobby there is a small child. You have limited time, so you must choose to either save the embryos and allow the girl to perish, or save the girl and sacrifice the embryos. Which do you choose?

Give the girl leukemia, or spina bifida, or MS, and that's exactly the choice that has been made. Congress (and the majority of the US population) chose the girl, President Bush chose the embryos.

This post is just a rant brought about by a personal experience from this weekend, so I apologize in advance. I had a good evening turn sour due to the mouthing-off of a couple of mathematically-challenged gamblers; I just need to get this off my chest.

If you honestly believe that the cards any person at a blackjack table takes or doesn't take has any effect whatsoever on the outcome of the dealer's hand, you probably shouldn't be gambling. Or at least not playing blackjack. Try slots or roulette, where the odds are as simple as your understanding of basic probability.

Convinced that if "third base" (the last player before the dealer) draws a face card that might bust the dealer he's "ruining" it for the table? Here's a thought experiment that might open your eyes: imagine if the dealer dealt the hand normally with one exception: she deals herself two down cards instead of only one. The second down card would become her first "draw" card, if she needed one. Does putting that first dealer draw card out there first magically prevent third base from so drastically affecting the game? Or could it be that the ordering of cards and the odds of a dealer bust are completely random and not affected by player decisions?

Another experiment: imagine if you were allowed to put a cut card into the deck (or 4 or 6 decks, as most casinos use) for every draw, with the card immediately behind the cut card being your draw card. (If the neat ordering of the cards in the shoe is too hard to ignore, imagine all the cards are in a big black bag and you just reach in and choose one.) Complete random selection out of the deck for each player and the dealer. Does this change the odds of the game in any way? Clearly not. But suddenly third base can't "steal" the card that would bust the dealer. It should be obvious that he never could.

Incidentally, the idiots mouthing off to me (for drawing to a hard 12 against a dealer 2, which is good basic strategy) this weekend failed to notice the time when I drew to a 13 (again, against a 2), pulled an 8 (yay), and the dealer subsequently pulled a King. "Saved" the entire table <rolleyes>, but nobody patted me on the back.

I make no claims to agreement or disagreement with the owner of the following website on matters of religion and its relationship to the state. I haven't read enough of his writings to know if I agree with him or think he's a kook.

I am, however, strongly opinioned on the need for the absolute neutrality of our government with regard to religion, and I find interesting Article 11 of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship" with Tripoli, written not long after our country was founded, while many of the founding fathers were in the senate (and joined in unanimous approval of the treaty). I don't think the intent of the founding fathers - and my own personal view - can be stated more clearly.

Give it a read.

MS is hosting a contest for people to create MSN bots, and this Xbox bot (from a fellow Xbox MVP) is pretty cool. Try it out and if you like it, vote for it!

Anybody else think that this month's Official Xbox Magazine cover might be a bit too much? Is it too early to whip up the drooling masses for Halo 3? I liked the analysis inside the magazine of the E3 trailer, but I'm not sure it's time yet to devote OXM covers to Master Chief. His next adventure is a loooong way off; I think putting him on the cover now just overshadows too many good titles that are coming in the next 3-6 months.

Looked at another way, is OXM playing into the hands of the rubber ducky crowd (Sony fanboys) who say that all Xbox has is Halo? If our official magazine splashes M.C. on the cover whenever anybody breathes a word of the game, it lends credence to the bath toys' position.

In my opinion, OXM should put no game on its cover that is farther than 6 months away. Preview articles? Fine. Developer interviews? Great. "100 Great upcoming games" feature? Cool. But save the cover for one of the many, many other interesting titles coming our way.

I know that the 3 people who visit this blog are probably hoping for Xbox-related stuff, so I apologize about this post. I'm more than a little pissed off at my elected representatives, though, and I need to vent...

The House of Representatives is "debating" House Resolution 861, titled "Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."

You can go read it if you like - it's not very long - but here's the gist:

- Thanks to Americans who supported the war
- Thanks to the countries who supported the war
- Thanks to the Afghani and Iraqi citizens who have died in support of the war
- We don't need no stinkin' plan, timeline, measurable goals, or exit strategy
- We're going to keep doing what we have been doing
- Hey all you countries that don't support us - why not come to our side now?
- We will "win" - whatever that means

This is nothing more than an attempt to energize the right for mid-term elections in November. By putting forth this head-in-the-sand resolution insisting we will "prevail in the Global War on Terror" - it's actually Capitalized; as if it's an actual, official, declared war - the Republican sponsors want to re-emphasize that they're standing strong, and everybody else wants to "cut and run". In short, we will all die in a flaming terrorist inferno if we don't just put our complete trust in the administration and congress, without demanding a meaningful debate about the hard issues. Trust us, we will prevail and keep you safe. Oh, and we'll be needing all your phone records to do that.

Among a bazillion questions I have for members of the house, here's a good one: WHERE THE FUCK IS OSAMA BIN LADEN? If we're going to prevail in the GWT(tm), why aren't we talking about him?

Here's one more: why isn't the debate about troop levels, plans, the measurable goals of the war, and the exit strategy? Why is it just a vote on "Do you support a resolution saying we will win?" How about some talk about how we're going to win? Well, that's a rhetorical question - the reason they don't want to debate the how is because they have no clue how, as has been clear for some time.

"We will prevail" - if only saying it actually made it so. It amazes me how they attempt to substitute blind faith and obstinateness for actual governance, debate, and leadership. And it really chafes my hide that America tends to buy it.

Update - Here's a quote from an ABC News article about the "debate":

Choreographed by the GOP, the debate unfolded four months before midterm elections that will decide the control of Congress. The administration, for its part, was so determined to get its message out that the Pentagon distributed a highly unusual 'debate prep book' filled with ready-made answers for criticism of the war.

If you haven't seen this video, you need to. Work safe (on headphones).

I can quit Oblivion any time I want to. No, really. Just not today.

Addicted to video games? Need help? Some people in Amsterdam stand ready to "detoxify" you. (Link to ABC News)