Tanker fire destroys part of MacArthur Maze
This just in! Tanker carrying liquid fuel crashes and explodes. Resulting flames DO melt steel reinforced structure and DO cause it to collapse. Even better, it's a piddling expressway ramp, supporting only its own weight, and not dozens of floors and millions of pounds of office building. Wow! Just amazing!
Case closed, fuckers!
Honestly, aside from the politics, I don't think about global warming. Sorry, "climate change", or whatever the phrase du jour is. I'm not one of those people who disputes it's happening. Human activity is almost certainly the primary cause, but realistically, things in nature rarely operate in such black and white terms. With the evidence of Mars' slight warming, a natural warm-cool cycle, caused by solar fluctuations, cannot be fully ignored. Ultimately, however, we can't do anything about the Sun. We can do something about our own atmosphere, but the popular solution is not the right one.
Look, Kyoto is useless. As far as I understand it, even if all of the countries who signed Kyoto were actually obeying it, and even if the United States were included, all Kyoto would do is help us reduce the global temperature by something like 0.8 degrees C by the middle of the century. Irrelevant. What Kyoto does do, however, is give "developing" countries like China and India free reign to dump as much pollution into the atmosphere as they can muster. Large, industrial corporations, already tempted by the low labour cost and lax corporate restrictions in those nations, will be even more compelled to leave their Western birthplaces in search of greater profits at any cost. Kyoto is simply a sham treaty, designed to let guilt ridden Western environmentalists feel good about themselves by moving all of our polluting industries to foreign lands.
What's even worse about Kyoto is that it gives people the impression that something is actually being done. You can see this attitude everywhere. "Oh, I saw Al Gore's movie, and I was so scared I had to go out and buy fluorescent light bulbs". We aren't going to repair the climate by buying energy efficient appliances, especially light bulbs (considering that since fluorescents don't produce as much heat, inside the home, any savings in energy is simply made up by your heating system, trying to make up the difference). We're also not going to do it by turning off the Eiffel Tower for five minutes, or by putting bumper stickers on our cars, or by watching documentaries, or by buying carbon offsets. People like Al Gore and David Suzuki keep telling us that this is a "moral" issue, and that it can only be solved by changing our living habits. Yet Al Gore's huge mansion uses over twenty times more power than the average American home, and David Suzuki's recent tour across Canada apparently required the use of the most obscene, diesel powered, rock band style tour bus I've ever seen. "Land yacht" would be an understatement. Yet through the miracle of carbon offsets, Gore and Suzuki can alleviate all of their guilt by simply handing over some cash to green technology developers, which may or may not, someday, help reduce emissions. All the while however, they, and everyone who evangelizes them, ignore the very real and substantial emissions they're pumping into the atmosphere today, and at a far greater rate than the average citizen. Why should I change my lifestyle, why should I do the little things, when the very people who preach it to me aren't willing to sacrifice one iota of Western luxury for themselves? So much for their great "moral" issue.
Environmentalists, the hardcore ones, simply can't let go of what they want the solution to be. They want you to stop driving, to stop having a hot shower every day, to stop buying designer clothes. They insist that the only way to solve our climate problems is to re-think our entire lifestyle and infrastructure. Not only that, but they follow an ideology that since technology has "caused" this problem, technology cannot possibly solve it. We must reduce our technological footprint, and stop "meddling" in nature's balance. You'll hear an awful lot about the "sustainable" lifestyle. I can't imagine anything more terrifying than a "sustainable" civilization. Native Americans were sustainable. Traditional African tribes are sustainable. Animals are sustainable. A "sustainable" civilization, by it's very nature, makes no progress, no innovations, no improvements. What a depressing prospect for the future.
First, we obviously need to get ourselves off of oil. While there is probably enough oil in the ground to last for another one or two hundred years, getting at that oil will become increasingly difficult and inefficient. In the near future, even with technological improvements in refining and extraction, it simply won't be worth it to keep pumping oil. Now there are a lot of potential replacements, but in general everything in the future is likely to be powered by electricity in one way or another. Generating that electricity will happen in many ways. Here in British Columbia we use a lot of hydro-electric dams, and ironically, if it weren't for the rabid environmentalists, we could build a few more of them and prevent ourselves from burning coal as we're doing now. Ocean wave action is a huge potential for power. With enough small generators on the ocean floor, some areas of the world might draw all of their power from such a system. Other areas will see significant use of wind farms. A previously abandoned project in Great Britain to use a geothermal system might be looked at again. Geothermal power could be created anywhere, in theory, so long as you're willing to drill deep enough to get at the warm core of the Earth. It was suggested that such a power station in the UK might provide all of the electricity for the entire island. Personal solar power, integrated more fully into people's homes, might provide more energy. Bridging any potential gaps between all of these solutions will be nuclear power. The environmentalists won't like that either, but they'll simply have no choice.
Electric cars will replace gas powered ones. I don't hold out a lot of hope for the "hydrogen economy" which would be needed to power fuel cells. Ultimately, I think electric cars will simply be easier to deal with, and will meet the needs of almost everyone who drives. There will be exceptions, such as long distance travelers and the shipping industry, who may operate on a hydrogen model out of necessity. Aircraft will continue to improve in fuel efficiency until oil simply becomes too expensive. Eventually, jet aircraft will migrate to entirely synthetic or pure chemical fuels. Our lifestyle will simply not be held back, and while things may change, ultimately I'm positive that the world of the future will operate in a completely recognizable way.
Now, what to do about our global warming issue? Since simply stopping the use of fossil fuels in certain countries will not produce any tangible benefits, we're simply going to have to turn to technology to solve the problem. Right now, people who advocate technological solutions are "crackpots". Large, air "filter" factories which scrub the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere are "crazy" and "unrealistic". Another idea is to actually spray a fine mist of dust into the upper atmosphere to help reflect more sunlight. I recently read a fascinating article about a science team in Europe who's working on mimicking plant photosynthesis synthetically, actually taking the greenhouse gas and using light to convert it into energy. So what's more likely, that one or all of these, or other technological solutions will actually help our planet? Or that we're going to get every country and every individual on Earth to mutually agree to simply stop polluting the air, and actually develop, implement, and administer a global burocracy to monitor and punish non-compliance? Right. It might even turn out to be easier to adapt to the new climate than to try and push it back to the way it was. Human engineering has the potential to solve a lot of the localized environmental consequences we're likely to see. Take the Netherlands for example. The whole country should be under the ocean, but it's not. Why is that? Because the Dutch live there, and they don't want their country to be under water, so they engineered a fix. Why people think this sort of thing can't be done elsewhere, I don't know? It's defeatism, pure and simple.
Throughout Human history, we have moved from one unsustainable lifestyle to another, from one unsustainable power source to another. First it was animals, then we began cutting down trees. When the people of Britain ran out of trees, they used coal, and eventually oil. Each power source has lasted longer than the one it replaced, and each has provided more efficient energy. While it may not be quite so easy to migrate this time, the possibilities for energy production are still immense on the Earth, with a little bit of elbow grease. Maybe after this next power cycle we'll move to fusion, and won't have to worry about our energy needs for millennia. In any case, we'll find a way, as we always have. Just because it won't be as easy as putting a pipe in the ground doesn't mean it's the end of the world, or the end of civilization, or the end of anything. This brings me to another problem the climate change proponents face: believability. Everyone who've alive today, from young adults to senior citizens, has been told by one person or another, that in one way or another, their generation would be burdened with some kind of cataclysm. Whether it was economic collapse, or nuclear war, or global pandemics, or whatever, there have always been scare mongers willing to tell you the world is about to end, and that it's all your fault, and they've always made good money off of it. While this isn't going to ever change, once you've survived two or three "irrefutable" dooms days, you start to tune it out. In the media, and in the scientific community, there is no "consensus", no matter what Al Gore might want you to believe. We don't actually know what's going to happen to the climate. Could be bad, could be really bad, could be not so bad. Computer models? They don't work, and never have. If you take the climate data from 30 years ago and plug it into one of these simulators, you don't get today's climate. I don't even know how these scientists can pretend to have a "global climate simulator" when we don't even fully understand how it all works. It's crazy. Nothing significant will be done about climate change until we start seeing some serious consequences. That's just the nature of society, and no one's going to change it anytime soon.
I know I said I had my fix of World War 2 games, but I didn't pick up this title because of the subject matter, but because I wanted to try the controls. So far first-person-shooter games have been all over the map on the Wii. "Call of Duty 3", the PS2 port, scored some praise for its control, but apparently suffered from sub-standard graphics, even for a Wii title. I thought about picking that game up instead, but since I'd just played COD2 I figured a slight change would be a good idea. Of course I didn't realize that the "Medal of Honor" series had adopted so many "Call of Duty" gameplay elements. The squad-based combat, the non-health system, it's all exactly the same. Even the compass looks identical. I honestly don't know how they get away with it, I mean, other than different music, the games feel exactly the same in every way. Obviously in this case the platform is different, but in terms of assets, hardly anything changes. I can understand that when it's a sequel or whatever from the same company, but that's not the case here. It's mind boggling, but enough of that for now.
When I first started playing "Vanguard", I could barely walk in a straight line. The controls take a surprising amount of practice. Towards the end of the game, I was able to pick off targets quickly and move around the environments almost as well as with a keyboard and mouse. I think the mouse is still a superior interface, but the pointer function of the Wii remote is close. The game has a bunch of options for configuring the controls, including an adjustable turn rate, gesture sensitivity, and the ability to lock the view to the centre. This last option simulates a more PC-like viewing system, where you point the remote where you want to look, but the on screen gun doesn't actually move around. The default setup has the gun moving around independently of the view, until it reaches the edges of the screen at which point the view begins to move. This second system is a lot better in my opinion, because it gives you a much more "tactile" connection to the on screen action. Wherever you point, the gun points. Simple. Another great part of "Vanguard" is the analogue leaning system. Basically, you hold down a button on the remote to look down your iron sights. Once there, your movement is locked, however, by manipulating the nunchuck's thumbstick, you can lean left, right, up, or down around boxes, walls, whatever. Compared to most games which just feature "lean left" and "lean right" buttons, this is a huge addition that really improves the gameplay. You can lean just a bit, or adjust your lean so you're barely peeking over something. Combined with the free-floating gun control through the remote, it's never been easier to shoot accurately from behind cover. Just a great idea that works perfectly, the only downside being that you can't look down the iron sights and walk forward at the same time.
While I was able to become quite proficient at shooting things, the gesture controls are another matter. The game features several actions mapped to different gestures with the nunchuck and remote. Shake the nunchuck to the left, and do a quick about face. Shake it to the right, and reload your weapon. By default, the game even has the "crouch" and "prone" actions mapped to thrusting the nunchuck down or up. I could never reliably do the gesture I wanted. I would thrust down to crouch, and the game would do an about face. I would pull back to get up and run, and the game would reload my weapon. I ended up turning off all of those controls, except for the reload weapon action, and instead relied on the buttons for crouching and so on. Much better. Since "Vanguard" features the 82nd Airborne Division, the game has a few nice, but short, sequences where you jump from aircraft into combat. While floating down, you hold the controllers up as if gripping your chute. By tilting them in various ways, you can turn, go forwards and backwards, or side to side, in an effort to land in a more favourable combat area. A bad approach with your drop can mean instant death once you hit the ground, as you may land too close to an enemy solider, or in the middle of a field with no cover to speak of, and machine guns trained on your every move.
I'd say the control system for "Vanguard" is okay, but not fantastic. At least they provide a lot of options for customization, with various sensitivity dials. The basic function of the point-to-shoot remote works great after some practice. It gives me hope that "Metroid Prime 3" is really going to be a great experience on the Wii, as long as they put the time into nailing the control so it's as perfect as it can be. Third party developers are still experimenting with the system as far as FPS games go. Nintendo needs to step in a show people how it's done, and I hope Metroid will do just that.
Brilliant! In case you haven't seen "Loose Change", the laughably unscientific and ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy video, this is a great comparison for its factual and scientific accuracy. The fact that there are people out there who believe "Loose Change" is proof that our education system is sorely inept at teaching people science and physics.
Jail time cut for gas-and-dash killer
Disgusting, and Canada is a disgusting country for allowing it. At the end of the day, this sick punk will have spent just over seven years in custody, two of them in a police jail, not a prison, for using his car to kill someone and drag their body for seven kilometres across Maple Ridge. Canadian justice, hard at work.
I've never understood the argument that the age of the criminal, or their potential for rehabilitation, should have any bearing whatsoever on the length of their sentence. I don't care how promising their young life is, or how sorry they are, or about how much their family needs them. They should have thought about that before deciding to kill someone, or rob a gas station, or race their car on a public street. At most, I'm willing to allow good behaviour to make it easier for the person to get their life together, but after prison. The state can recommend them when they're looking for a job, an apartment, or when they're trying to secure a loan. Lowering the already too low sentence because they're "nice" in jail? Ridiculous. This loser KILLED a young man. Where is the victim's "second chance"? Where is his family's "second chance"? Where is his girlfriend's "second chance"?
Our "justice" system is rotten; infested to the core with bleeding-heart do-gooders and criminal apologists. At least the public is starting to catch on, every time someone they know or one of their friend's friends gets injured, robbed, raped, mugged, or killed, and the perpetrator gets off with a soft whip across the back with a dry towel. Mandatory sentencing and other law-bound means of controlling our pacifist judges and parole boards is at least being considered seriously. It's not enough, of course. What we need is reform in how the system functions. The public should have some kind of control, especially over judges, to keep them on a well deserved leash. I can recall a case a number of years ago where a young man was street racing on Knight street, killed a middle aged woman as she crossed the road, and was sentenced to two years of house arrest. There must be some way the public can say to the judge responsible: "You're sick, and you're fired!"
I completed "Call of Duty 2" yesterday, much to my surprise. The final mission isn't really anything special, and certainly never gives you any impression that there's any kind of climax going on. Don't get me wrong, "COD2" is a decent game, but then again, after so many World War 2 shooters, they should have the formula pretty much down now. I suppose that's the big issue with the game; it feels like a formula, and one I've seen far too often.
COD2 has some great gameplay elements, but it gets old very quickly. I wouldn't recommend playing it for more than an hour at a time, because you'll quickly fall into a trance as you perform the same tasks over and over again. Lay down cover fire, watch for your squad to do the same, advance to a position of cover, lean out and get a read on the enemy positions, fire rifle. There is also a lot of "room clearing" in COD2, and when I say "a lot", I mean A LOT! Eventually you get sick of starting a mission where your squad leader says "Okay men, we've got to clear the Fascists/Jerries/Krauts out of these buildings". As kinetic and exciting as close quarters urban combat is, this is a sure fire case of too much of a good thing.
"Call of Duty" takes a slightly more realistic approach to WW2 combat compared to EA's "Medal of Honor" series, for example. The combat takes place in squads, as opposed to you being some kind of super-soldier tasked with infiltrating and destroying entire Nazi compounds. The missions are based on actual battles, loosely. However, it's still a game. If you're a shitty soldier, your squad will make up the difference, almost without fail. No matter how many of your fellow soldiers are killed, there always seem to be more coming from somewhere, and certain mainstay characters, like the Lieutenants, seem to be completely invincible. The only way to really fail a mission is to get killed, or to accidentally shoot your own men. Surprisingly, this can happen quite a bit. The battlefield is frequently a total mess, with residual smoke hanging in the air and grenade or mortar blasts exploding around you. If can be tricky to tell friend from foe at a glance, especially with so many of the uniforms being the same colour, and the German troops having four or five different outfits. The cursor turns green over friendlies, but in the heat of the moment you'll have already fired half a clip into someone before you notice.
Another interesting thing about COD2 is the damage system. There is no traditional "health" meter or number. You don't spend any time looking around for health packs or power-ups. The only way you can get killed is to take too much damage at once. While one shot won't take you out, three or four in a row, or a large explosion from a grenade or shell, will end your mission immediately. The good thing about this system is that it really encourages the player to stick to the "realistic" squad style of combat. Covering fire, moving to sheltered positions, and taking quick shots at the enemy are tactics that work well. No longer can you load up on health packs and then charge an oncoming tank or enemy machine gun, confident that your health will hold up. Walking out into the open in COD2 means almost certain death. The downside of the system is that as long as you're careful, it's very hard to get killed. Getting hit once or twice just means you have to stay out of sight for a few seconds to "recover", before heading back into the battle as if nothing had happened. Still, while some ultra-realistic war games, with the one-shot-kill, are out there, I tend to find them a lot less fun. COD2 is an action game after all, not a simulation.
COD2 has very little in the way of music. There are few nice bits at the end of missions, but during most of the gameplay, you're treated to the simple sounds of war. This is another difference from the "Medal of Honor" series, which tend to behave more like films, with a constant dramatic score playing throughout. COD2 is a simpler game on the production end, but its mood is totally different. It was good fun to play the game, but if they're going to keep making these, they've got to get some more variety in the action. Still, it's been at least three years since I played my last WW2 game, "Battlefield 1942", and I've got my fix now. I don't exactly feel a need to rush out and get the next "Call of Duty" game I can find. Besides, I could always choose one of the bazillion other WW2 shooters on the market. Don't people get tired of this stuff?