5.27.2003

COMMENTARY - The Pink Razor Conspiracy

Sorry it's been so long. I'm still awaiting internet access at home, plus they've finally caught on to me at work with the internet abuse, and I've been issued a semi-formal warning for the misconduct. While that certainly has a way of hampering my posting here, it by no means is going to stop me from providing fresh content to my growing audience of eight. So without further ado, the Pink Razor Conspiracy. Razors used to be a fairly generic and simple object. A cheap plastic stick with one sharp little blade on it. They came in varying colors, but in general were of a unisex model. They all had the same design, and aside from differing shades of plastic, they were otherwise identical. Then along came all these innovations in the area of severing hair follicles from your epidermis. They added more blades, a lubricating pad, and reusable handles with disposable blades. At first they marketed these new inventions mostly to men, but soon discovered that many women were buying them as well. Thus a new variation of the same blade was created specifically for women. So to recap, we went from one generic universal razor to two seemingly identical yet slightly different models varying on sex. Why bother? Why not continue to offer the same universal solution? Solely to make more money, of course. As I said, the two models have slight differences between them. Namely, the women's model lasts longer than the men's model. This forces men to go out and spend more money on new razors with greater frequency, thus making the company more money. So having figured this out, why wouldn't a man just use the woman's razor? Simple. It's pink. No self respecting man would ever shave with some curvy handled pink razor with a name like "Venus". He needs a manly razor, in manly silvers, blacks, and blues, with a manly name, like "Mach 3". Now that's a manly razor. I'm sure all the chicks in the marketing department for Gillette are laughing all the way to the bank.

5.16.2003

COMMENTARY - Not enough anti?

It has come to my attention that for an anti-weblog weblog, I don't gripe about weblogs enough. Allow me to remedy that. I had thought about creating an additional list to accompany my list of blogs that don't suck, to encompass the most dreadful, appalling, ghastly, horrific, and otherwise mind numbingly stupid weblogs to be found on the internet. But the problem is, there are just so many of them, and sorting out the absolute worst of them was enough to give me an aneurysm. Besides, the last thing I want to do for a crappy blog is give them a link. So here's a ranting post instead. I have determined that the big problem with weblogs is actually due to their ease of use. Since any idiot can set one up with no more effort than filling out a form and selecting a template, their is no sort of natural selection involved to weed out the marginally literate or the chronically stupid, to prevent them from spreading their incomprehensible idiocy across the internet. Their first week of posting usually resembles something like "test", "testing", "still testing", "First post!", "Hello?", "Is anybody out there?", and "Does this thing work?", after which their seemingly boundless intellect dries up like dog crap on the sidewalk under the summer sun, leaving them with nothing further to say. But they won't let a little thing like content stop them from posting. That's when they start using not only a template for their site, but templates for their posts as well, with stupid lists and quizzes and surveys and horoscopes and little questionnaires that determine which pop singer or movie star your personality supposedly most closely matches. Wow. That's almost as much fun as watching these webcams. Honestly folks, if you don't have anything to say and you are only going to post the exact same thing as every other clueless idiot with a weblog, why bother at all? What's the point of having a site to share your thoughts and creativity when you don't have any of either? You're a pothole on the information superhighway. You are only getting in everybody's way and eventually someone is just going to pave you over.

5.15.2003

COMMENTARY - They just don't write children's books like they used to...

I wish this were a joke and I could take credit for some humorous Photoshop work, but sadly enough this book was actually published. Click on the picture if you don't believe me. It's actually rather old, and finding copies to purchase are becoming thankfully scarce, but like any instance of true idiocy, it is nevertheless timeless. What was the author thinking? More importantly, how did a title like that slip by the editors? And would you really want to tell your friends, family, and neighbors that your child learned to cook by Cooking with Pooh? Even children's book aren't safe for children any longer...

5.14.2003

REVIEW: Adventures in Geekland - Alternative Operating Systems for the Masses

Due to the extremely technical topic of this post, I have created two versions of this same article. The one below is for the less technically inclined and the lazy bastards. The version found here is my technical paper, available for anyone who might be interested in undertaking a similar endeavor in booting multiple operating systems.
Everybody likes the word "free". But there's usually a catch. The old adage "you get what you pay for" generally holds true, and PC operating systems have been no exception to this rule. Until now. Linux has been a rapidly growing force in the geek community for decades. It's an open source system, meaning anyone with the proper knowledge can essentially take the hood off the engine and play around inside, altering it however they like. This availability to the inner workings of the operating system is also the source of its development, where geeks with their spare time have contributed improvements and additions to it over the years. The positive results of this gradual development from sources worldwide is self evident. Linux is one of the most stable operating systems to be found today, has a wide range of programs, and is still free to the public. There have been, however, some negative effects as a result of open source development as well. Many different versions of Linux have resulted, making it difficult for the consumer to discern any difference between them and determine which one best suits their needs. Also, without a large staff of highly paid programmers like some other software company we all know, development has been fairly slow for Linux. Windows software does not run natively under Linux either, so it requires a bit of a transition to learn their Linux alternatives. Many programs, like most games for example, just aren't available on Linux at all, which can make switching to a solely Linux-based system tough for many users. Until recently Linux was also very difficult for the average user to install, but thankfully many of the more popular versions have overcome this hurdle now.
So here I am, with my new computer and still without internet. So I got bored and decided to see how many operating systems I could install on one hard drive. I had a friend download a few of the more popular Linux distributions and bring them over, and I went to work. I ended up tinkering with five different operating systems altogether. From Microsoft we have Windows 98SE and Windows 2000 Pro, in the Linux camp is Red Hat and Mandrake, and then there's the redheaded Unix stepchild, FreeBSD.
I'll spare you all the exciting details of my multi-booting adventure. If you really want to know, read my full technical article on how I did it here. I will limit the remainder of this post to only a review of these operating systems.
FreeBSD. This is the type of installation nightmare that gives Linux/Unix a bad name. The menus aren't user friendly, it doesn't walk you through any real installation sequence, forcing you to guess what to do next, and partitioning the drives from within the installer is like reading an alien language. Twice I tried to install it, and twice I mucked it up. I never did actually get it running. This one is definitely for the more hardcore experienced Unix geek who likes to memorize the exact geometry of his hard drives and can write his own partition tables by start and end sectors by hand. It sounds like a joke, but sadly enough I'm dead serious...
Mandrake 9.0. A breeze to install. It booted right off the CD, brought up a beautiful graphical interface, and walked you through the installation simple as that. The installation was well documented, and you could find help for any feature you might be looking at, right while you were installing it. It comes with tons of bells and whistles and all sorts of little programs and utilities, many of which one could easily question their practicality or usefulness. Two of my favorites are the Tea Cooker, and the googly eye thing. Yes, the Tea Cooker. It puts an icon in your task bar. You click on it, and tell it what kind of tea you are making. It then counts down the appropriate amount of time to allow that tea to brew, and then pops up with a dialog box saying "Your tea is now ready." Yessir, you can't get that kind of quality software on Windows. Then the googly eyes... it... puts googly eyes on your desktop. The eyes just follow your mouse pointer, looking at it wherever it goes. Definitely a necessity. Everyone should have googly eyes on their desktop. Aside from some rather ridiculous extras, this OS is no joke though. I'd definitely recommend Mandrake as the Linux distribution of choice if you're the type of person who likes to tinker with all the little settings and configuration options on your system.
Red Hat 8.0. The installation experience was very similar to Mandrake. It booted right off the CD, had a nice graphical interface, and also offered loads of help on installation options. For some reason I found the Mandrake install slightly easier to work with, although this is just a personal perference. Both were remarkably easy to install. In use, Red Hat had a somewhat more professional feel to it. This is not to say it ran better than Mandrake, just that the overall appearance felt cleaner, simpler, and better organized, with less menus and options to confuse you with. If you're looking for a serious, no-nonsense replacement to Windows, then Red Hat is for you.
In use, both distributions bare an initial resemblence to Windows. However, one will quickly find that there are numerous differences. Thankfully, Linux is very well documented, and you can find detailed help on virtually every aspect of the operating system within its own help files. Linux is also very stable and secure, and under an average user account there is little fear of the user messing up the system or altering it irreparably while experimenting.
So who should consider Linux, and why? Honestly, I think these two distributions have shown that, without a doubt, Linux is ready for the masses. They are easy to install, and run far more stable than Windows. They provide much of the same functionality for most common computer tasks, such as office applications, and you can't beat the cost of FREE. Yet, transitioning to a new operating system is a big step for most home users. If they buy a new computer and it already has Windows installed, why bother even messing with something else? It would be nice to see more PC manufacturers ship computers with Linux, or even PC's that dual boot with Windows and Linux, but Microsoft has a vice grip on the industry, chaining most household PC manufacturers to contractual obligations forbidding them from such activity. As a result, the average home user will not bother with Linux. Where Linux can and is really making inroads in is with businesses. What better way to cut costs than to switch to a free operating system and tell Microsoft where they can stick their corporate liscences? You save money and improve stability at the same time, it's a win-win situation. And corporations are where the money is really at anyway, so it is really a bigger threat to Microsoft here than on the home PC. I can see Linux continuing to gain ground with businesses and geeks alike. It has developed enough of a following to make Microsoft worry, and worry they should. However, due to the lack of compatibility with Windows software in Linux, Microsoft's iron grip on the market, and the general laziness and lack of technical knowledge of the general public, I think it will still be some time before it's a real contender for Microsoft on the household desktop PC.

5.07.2003

Review - Dew or Die!

Mountain Dew versus tap water. It's a debate far more serious than you might expect. I'm going to do a little analysis here comparing tap water to Mountain Dew to determine which, in fact, is better for you. My inspiration was this annual water quality report I received in the mail from the City Utilities Department today. Allow me to detail some of my favorite excerpts.
"The City can experience seasonal taste and odor problems associated with the drinking water... The primary causes are Geosmin and Methylisoborneol (MIB), non-harmful, naturally occurring compounds associated with algae growth in lakes and canals." Yum. Thanks, but if I wanted to drink algae, I'd stick my head in my fish tank.
Then we get into the section on "Possible Contaminants", which apparently algae wasn't considered as one, having it's own separate section elsewhere on the report. "Drinking water may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants... As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some cases radioactive material, and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activity. Contaminants that may be present in source water include:
Microbial contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria that may come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.
Inorganic contaminants, such as salts and metals, which can be naturally occurring or result from urban storm water runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.
Pesticides and herbicides, which may come from a variety of sources such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff, and residential uses.
Organic Chemical Contaminants, including synthetic and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of industrial processes and petroleum production, and can also come from gas stations, urban storm water runoff, and septic systems.
Radioactive contaminants, which can be naturally occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and mining activities.

Wow. So theoretically, at any given time I could be drinking small portions of a radioactive dung beetle that fell victim to a roach bait trap, which then rolled into leaky gas station sewer with some runoff during an acid rain storm. But that's not all. The water quality data table also indicated traces of the following: arsenic, asbestos, barium, calcium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, radium, and selenium, just to name a few of the more easy to pronounce ones. While these are all reported as within FDA regulatory levels, I hardly feel that consumption of these substances at any level on a regular basis can be good for you.
Conversely, here are the contents of a can of Mountain Dew: Carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup and/or sugar, concentrated orange juice and other natural flavors, citric acid, sodium benzoate (preserves freshness), caffeine, sodium citrate, gum arabic, yellow 5, erythorbic acid (preserves freshness), calcium disodium EDTA (to protect flavor) and brominated vegetable oil. I think the comparison speaks for itself. However, since I know half of you people who visit my site crumble under my seemingly inexhaustible verbosity and can never actually finish reading my posts, here's a chart for you lazy bastards.

Water

VS.

Mountain Dew

 WaterMt. Dew
Algae growth YN
Arsenic YN
Asbestos YN
Fecal waste (crap) YN
Microbial floaty things YN
Radioactive waste Y?
Various poisons YN
Various metals YN
Good for fish to swim in YN
Bubbly carbonation NY
Caffeine NY
Sugar NY
It looks cool NY
It's supposed to be yellow NY


There you have it, irrefutable evidence that Mountain Dew is better for you than water. So stay away from that tap, rush down to your local grocery or convenience store, and load up on the caffienated yellow goodness that is Mt. Dew. This has been a public service announcement.

5.02.2003

REVIEW - Lost, but not forgotten: A gaming past revisited.

That's right, my computer is finally built! There is however an unfortunate problem with the cable lines in my neighborhood preventing me from attaining internet access at the moment, so I have had some time to dust off some old gear and relive some old memories. We're not talking ancient history here, but definitely of things from which most gamers have moved on to newer and "better" things. Alright, so what am I talking about already? Descent 3, and the PantherXL.
I have followed Decent since it's inception. Not quite a first person shooter, yet not quite a flight sim either, the series sits in a unique category all to its own. I have yet to find another game that equals the feeling of getting lost in a 360 degree maze, as Descent does so well. This third installation of the series is by far and away the best, a culmination of everything that made the previous two great, with all manners of new features as well. This episode takes the fight above ground, and while many of the levels are still of the same mineshaft mayhem that gave so many gamers vertigo in the first two games, there are numerous levels that now have you fighting out under the beautiful open sky. The game is several years old now, but the time and effort put into its creation still shines through. The game scenery and graphics are beautiful and even the animated cutscenes are still of good quality, even by many of today's game standards. This game also by far has my favorite opening sequence to any game ever, with a cinematic quality so strong it feels more like the beginning of a movie than a game. The opening theme song during this sequence is breathtaking, and the soundtrack in general is quite excellent as well. The sound effects are also superb. It still holds on to many of the sounds that greeted gamers in the series' first installment, providing some updates on them, with many new effects added as well. The game picks up right where Descent 2 left off, and you are now seeking revenge against the very man that employed you in the previous games, after his attempt to have you killed. Descent 3 has a much stronger plot than its predecessors, and is aided by the animation sequences between levels. Where previously the goal to each level was nothing more than blowing up a reactor somewhere, each mission now has clearly defined and varying objectives, progressing you through an actual storyline (what a concept). The controls, as always, are stellar. They are extremely customizable to practically any joystick, keyboard, mouse, or any combination thereof. In fact, you almost need all three to play this game well. Maintaining constant control over three different axes is no simple task without a joystick. If you were to play a match online (assuming anyone still does play it online), it becomes immediately evident who has the control of a joystick and who is a "keyboard lamer". Descent 3 has evolved elegantly from it's ancestors into a game that holds true to its origins yet has adapted to a more modern gaming style, look, and feel. Yet somehow, the game still flopped. Perhaps 360 degree disorientation just isn't what the general public looks for in a game. The game failed so miserably in fact, that no one even dares to pick it up again for a Descent 4 sequel, which is really quite unfortunate. I truly hope that one day, someone will decide to pick up this series again, dust it off, and give it another run. But in the meantime, Descent 3 still has some gas left in it.
In an analogous predicament, is the MadCatz PantherXL. A device that is similarly unique in the game controller world, it resembles a joystick and a trackball half melded together into one giant conglomeration of the two. I admit I was skeptical of the beast in the beginning myself, but it only takes a short while to get used to it, and I have found that it provides an unequaled level of control in first person shooters and flight sims alike. My only complaint is the miniscule excuse for a throttle control. On a monstrosity that big there is surely plenty of room to stick a respectably sized throttle, yet they tossed in this tiny little piece of plastic instead, almost as an afterthought. That one caveat aside, it is one of the finest gaming peripherals I have ever laid hands on, with its solid construction, lots of buttons, and unique design. Too bad they don't make them anymore. MadCatz has long since dropped out of the PC peripheral business to focus solely on the console gaming market, and thus the PantherXL has sadly dropped out of production. The controller hasn't even had official support since Windows 98, but luckily I managed to dig up some Windows 2000 drivers for it off the internet. While I now have it running flawlessly with Descent 3, several other titles I have tried will not even recognize the controller. I am uncertain whether this is an issue with the drivers I downloaded or the games I am trying to play with it, but either way, support for this controller is definitely dying out. And so yet another brilliant and unique gaming product fades away into history and memory.
With the overabundance of new games devoid of creativity or ingenuity, sometimes it's good to look back and remember the landmarks in one's gaming history and recall a time when game designs that are now cliche were once clever and new. While I know it is now virtually impossible to get your hands on a PantherXL, I would still recommend Descent 3 to anybody with a decent joystick of any kind, as there are still copies of the game floating around that can be had for under $15.

Descent 3
Graphics: 8/10cha'DIch 'aj
OVERALL
Sound: 9/10wa'DIch 'ajwa'DIch 'aj
Gameplay: 8/10cha'DIch 'aj
Ingenuity: 9/10wa'DIch 'aj
Replay Value: 8/10cha'DIch 'aj
Violent Vertigo Vomiting: 10/10yo' 'aj
9/10

Panther XL
Construction: 9/10wa'DIch 'aj
OVERALL
Accuracy: 10/10yo' 'ajcha'DIch 'aj
Comfort: 9/10wa'DIch 'aj
Installation: 5/10ra'wI'
Support: 3/10Sogh
A useful trackball!: 10/10yo' 'aj
8/10