Ted Kennedy To Greet Mary Jo Kopechne In Person For The First Time Since Chappaquiddick

So, when I heard yesterday that Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor I have to say it made me feel like driving off a bridge. At any rate, I hope this doesn’t take too long. I always hate long goodbyes.

Raiding and Guild Dynamics in The New World of Warcraft Expansion

The following information was released about how Dungeons & Raids are going to work in World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King:
 

One exciting new feature in Wrath of the Lich King is that all raid content will be available as either a 10- or 25-person dungeon with completely independent progression paths. Both the 10- and 25-person versions will be the same dungeon; the look, layout, and design of the dungeon will remain the same. However, each will be adjusted, tuned, and balanced for its respective player size.
 
In Wrath of the Lich King, players can expect both 10- and 25-person raid progression paths to get increasingly difficult as they adventure to their final battle with Arthas. This new gameplay mechanic will allow more players to enjoy the raid content of Wrath of the Lich King in their preferred play style. Because it takes more effort to get 25 people together than it does for 10, players who participate in the 25-person raid progression path will receive higher quality and more loot than those who play the 10-person versions.
 
In addition, players will never be required to attune in a 10-person raid to progress to a 25-person raid in the progression path. Raid lockouts are same-size as well, so joining a 25-person raid for a dungeon will not lock a player out from the 10-person version of the same dungeon. This freedom of choice between raid-progression paths will let personal preference play a much bigger role in how players experience the raid content of Wrath of the Lich King.
 

---

My Comments:
 
Now, I don’t know how you guys feel about this (or if you even care). From a ”big picture” point of view, this is great, because smaller guilds can run all the content without missing anything. In World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade, a significant percentage of the player base never got to see Illidan or Archimonde. That won’t happen, when it comes to Arthas.
 
I think this will have an affect on both the role-playing aspect of the game as well as the “casual” guilds, because smaller guilds will be able to do all the instances. No longer will smaller, casual guilds lose people to larger raiding guilds just because people want to see all the content the expansion has to offer. Sure, smaller guilds will still see attrition because people will still leave for a more hardcore raiding experience. But there will always be people, due to time constraints or what have you, that will have a casual play schedule, even though they may have “hardcore skills.”
 
So, this is great news for highly skilled players in guilds that have a more casual raiding schedule!

Quoth the Raven

On a personal note, I’m writing this post with the portable install of the new Zoundry Raven software. I’m interested to see how it will turn out, when viewed online.

I do not enjoy writing in the first person. It seems informal, and “informal,” to me, has a close association with “subjective.” Subjective statements (opinions) seem to me to be less valuable or, at least, less universal than objective statements (stating fact). There is a saying that goes, “Opinions are like assholes - everyone’s got one, and most of them stink.” That observation seems, to me, to contain quite a lot of truth, anecdotal though it may be.

The very nature of blogging seems to accept a sort of impersonal, perhaps even conversational, tone as being perfectly acceptable. I think this serves to lend a lot of credence to opinions, sometimes elevating them in the mind of the consumer beyond a level of verisimilitude that is appropriate to their station, in the grand scheme of the universal sharing of ideas.

To my mind, statements “live” in a kind of caste system. Occupying the highest echelons of their society, statements that are objective without being trite look down with justifiable condescension upon their kin. Just below these admirable gentlefolk, objective statements that are trite but true occupy a rank that is only somewhat less desirable. Near the bottom of the pile, in the mud and the muck, live Opinions, feasting on the once-digested remains of meals, biologically discarded, that flow freely in the gutter.

Philosophical or scientific - sometimes, even, religious - statements that resonate with truth, whether visceral or existential, seem to merit higher regard than mere opinions. It seems, to me, therefore that only an exceptionally arrogant person would lend value to something as abjectly worthless as an opinion - particularly their own (for, if they are appropriately introspective, they should know that opinion’s true value; whereas, they might be deceived regarding the value of the opinion of another). Irrefutable, however, is the fact that opinions - particularly those of others we admire - are held in high regard, regardless of their basis (or lack thereof) in logic or reason.

This is something I regard as an “intellectual sin.” As is often the case with sin, however, if enough people consistently commit it, and too few people condemn it, it passes into a realm of social acceptability. Sin is a funny thing. It seems, when it comes to sin - whether intellectual or spiritual - it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

I thank you, therefore, for your indulgence (and forgiveness), if I ever write in the first person. I hope you won’t hold it against me or dismiss my ideas, though opinions they may be. I ask only for that grace, that act of looking the other way, that we seem to dole out in such liberal portions, sinful as it may be, to so many information disseminators every single day.

I hold out hope that in a sea of opinions, I may, at some point, communicate some objective bit of truth that holds some measure of wisdom. If I can but say one truthful, honest thing in my life, and if that statement can endure the test of time and pass into the realm of accepted wisdom, I will be content, and consider my labors to have had merit.

Talking about New Yorker: The open secret of success - The New Yorker- msnbc.com

I found this article intriguing. Check it out. 

Quote

New Yorker: The open secret of success - The New Yorker- msnbc.com
Skip

Almost Inhuman

Isn’t it odd that we have created inhuman fictional characters that have become wildly popular in our culture - characters we love to quote and who have contributed to the cultural dialogue in no small degree - yet we make them so very human? Why do we use inhuman characters to point out the best in humanity? Are we seeking an objective viewpoint, and, if so, why do we, as a culture, reject the viewpoint of a Divine Being?

Take Lt. Commander Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation, for example; he actually aspires to be human - or as similar to one as he can be. In an episode in which Brent Spiner’s character speaks with Leonard Nimoy’s character, Ambassador Spock, both inhuman characters discuss the merits and limitations of “being human.”

Data points out that Spock, who is half-human and half-Vulcan, chose, as a matter of lifestyle, the Vulcan half of his heritage, whereas Data, whose android abilities do not include emotional responses, is the apex of what Vulcans aspire to achieve - an existence completely free of emotional entanglements, which allows them to operate in a realm of pure logic. These two characters - one that originited in Star Trek (the original series) and one from the arguably more popular Next Generation series - briefly explore the merits of “being human,” and their observations regarding humans seem generally positive.

In fact, it is amazing how human aliens, robots, androids and other science-fiction character types are. Of course, this sort of fiction is written in such a way that certain character types will appeal to a consumer who will, hopefully, buy either an ideology or a product (or both), that the book, TV series or movie creator is selling.

The question is, why not use humans? We do, of course, but Anne Rice has her all-too-human vampires with all of their conflicts and inner demons; Gene Roddenberry showcased many different lifeforms, each of which seemed to teach us something about ourselves; George Lucas had his droids and his little green swamp hermit; and all of them - and many more such creations - have become wildly popular, and even influential to the cultural philosophy we all seem to buy into, to some degree.

It could be argued that when a non-human character makes a statement about human beings, it creates an artificial (pardon the pun) sense of objectivity. We consider the observation from this point of view, and either agree - usually with a chuckle - or disagree. When we disagree, we chalk it up to a misunderstanding - How could an alien understand what it means to be human? Either way, we are forced to look at ourselves, as if from the outside. It causes a conscious (or subconscious) moment of reflection on the whole of which we each are a part, and a generalized value judgement as well.

Reflection in a more focused form is often manifested in meditation. The Buddha said that “meditation brings wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance,” and cautioned us to “know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.” Reflection is an important part of religious observation of any kind - whether on ourselves or on the teachings of the religion we choose. Making value judgements is also a part of any religion.

Why, then, is it so popular to culturally reject organized religion? Why do we not want the point of view of a supreme Divine Being? It could be argued that we are afraid of coming short of the ideal to which He might have us adhere - a state of being many would be loathe to admit, endure or correct.

So, we create, instead, artificial beings as imperfect as we are to make us feel good about ourselves - accepting and laughing along with their positive observations, and excusing as erroneous the ones that we find distasteful. We have created the ultimate back-patting machine, and his name is Data.

In Mr. Spock’s words, this is “truly fascinating.”

Monopoly

It’s nice to be on WordPress.com. This is my first post. I hope to have lots of time to blog about things that interest me and others, and I hope you’ll come back by to check me out, when I have more content!