World of Warcraft on the cheap

Just wanted to give a head’s up to Battle for Wesnoth, a turn-based fantasy role playing game.  In spirit, it is similar to Warcraft, at least the original (I haven’t played the newest incarnation of WoW, so I don’t know how it compares to that one).  In Wesnoth, you control a commander who can summon troops of various types (elves, dwarves, gryphon riders, knights, mermen, etc, depending on your accomplishments up to that point in the game).  I’ve played the main scenario, entitled, appropriately, “Battle for Wesnoth”.  As your troops fight and gain experience, they also gain levels.  You have some control on their development (for example, lancers can become either knights or paladins, it is up to you).  You fight other humans, orcs, undead, and so on.  Each scenario has a set of objectives for you to meet (just last through the turns, kill the leaders, get your army to the other side).

It is a pretty fun game.  And, the best thing is that it is free to download.  I’d highly recommend it. I played it on a Mac and there were no problems.  I cheated a bit, saving the game at some key moment and reloading it if my attack didn’t go as I’d hoped (there is, as is usual in these games, an element of chance whenever an attack occurs).

Fantasy woes…

Well, to the one or two of you who read this blog, I may have seemed oddly silent about the fantasy football season.  And there is a good reason for it:  my team sucks!  I’m not quite at the bottom of the league (that spot is reserved for the guy who had Vick and dumped him as soon as word of the dog fighting came out).  But, I’m very near there and could easily end up at the bottom the way things are going.

It all comes down to keepers.  We play in a league where we get to keep certain players from one year to the next.  My keepers appeared strong.  I was ranked number one in our preseason poll.  But, that is why they play the games.  Among my keepers I have Larry Johnson and Shaun Alexander, both of whom haven’t done so well after receiving monster contracts.  While not suffering from the typical Madden curse, Vince Young might as well have been injured for  how well he has been playing.  Larry Fitzgerald?  If he had some consistency at QB and a guy who was healthy, maybe he could do some damage.

Even the guys I drafted have not done well.  Travis Henry?  First he’s banged up and he’s likely soon to be suspended.

My bright spots are Peyton Manning (he’s not tearing up the league like Brady (damn the Patriots!  My brother, who is leading the league, has both Brady and Moss… I hate the Patriots, so much so that I even rooted for the Cowboys.  I feel dirty.) and TJ  Houshmandzadeh.  I have a couple of other nice surprises, but typically they are too inconsistent to guarantee a start and they typically have their great day on those where I don’t start them.

The bright spot for the season?  Well, even though I don’t have him, the season that Adrian Peterson is having is just awesome!  Think of how good the Vikes might be if they had a decent QB.  Peterson is tearing up the field even when everyone knows the Vikes can’t throw.  The future looks good for Vikings fans.  See, there is always a bright spot, if you look hard enough.  🙂

Wall Street Journal furor

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Keith Johnson which questioned the usefulness of Euskara, the Basque language, in a modern context. He makes a number of points, most of which are pretty ridiculous. For example, he criticizes Euskara for having non-native words for concepts like democracy, which, of course, isn’t a native English word either as it derives from Greek roots. Because of the number of incorrect assertions Johnson makes, this article has generated quite the response from online Basques. Unfortunately, the WSJ article is only viewable to those who have a subscription to the journal (if you have one, you can see the article here). However, you can get the gist of the article by reading the responses to it. Here are a couple:

  • Itsasertzeko zubia (which also posts a reply by Johnson in response to the criticism his article has generated)
  • Luistxo’s blog
  • Mikel Iturbe‘s response to the article
  • EuskoBlog‘s take on the Basque-phobe-of-the-week
  • EiTB‘s initial response to the article and
  • Mikel Morris‘s answer to Johnson (Morris is the author of the leading English-Basque dictionary)

All of these responses do a much better job than I could in debunking Johnson’s article and I agree with what they say. To criticize the Basque Country for wanting Basque to be a viable language within its borders seems utterly ridiculous to me. And we wouldn’t criticize other, larger countries for doing the same. Don’t we essentially demand that doctors know English in the US, even if they are administering to predominantly Spanish-speaking areas? I know there are schools taught primarily in Spanish, but the teachers know English all the same. It seems to me quite a double standard.

What do you think?

Is it torture?

There has been a lot of discussion about Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, and whether he views waterboarding as torture.  Like most executive branch people, he hems and haws and never really answers the question.  See, for example, this LA Times article.

It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked of these guys is this:  Is the US doing anything to prisoners that we would not want done to our soldiers if they were captured by the enemy?  If your son or daughter were captured, would you be uncomfortable with the enemy doing the same things to them that we do to our prisoners?  Cuts to the heart of the matter, at least to me.

The whole reason for the Geneva Convention, it seems to me, was to make sure that our guys were treated well enough when they were captured during war.  So, we (and other countries) said we would treat the enemy in a certain way so that our guys would be too.   So, that is the litmus test: are we treating the enemy in a way we would want our guys treated?

Prius vs Hummer

A friend of mine came into work the other day, touting an article very similar to this one (the one he had was written by a James Martin for a senior citizens’ publication, but I can’t find a good link to it online; in any case, the content is essentially the same as the one above). The basic conclusion of this article is that the Hummer is more eco-friendly than the Prius (recall, Lisa and I just bought a used Prius).

I won’t go into all the reasons that I think this article is BS, as the main points have been refuted already by a number of others (see, for example, this Wikipedia article, this Better World Club article, and this topic on the Hybrid Cars forum). However, there are a few comments I wanted to add to those already made.

First, the main crux of the argument that the Hummer is more eco-friendly has to do with the mining of nickel that is used in the batteries of a Prius. Much (most? all?) of the nickel Toyota uses comes from a mine in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada (also, interestingly, the home of Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, or SNO, an underground neutrino detector built in an abandoned mine in Sudbury). The article claims that there is a great deal of pollution associated with that mine and, if you consider that pollution in the production of a Prius, it makes the Hummer look as green as can be. As some of the other links point out, though, the main pollution from Sudbury occured several decades ago, long before Toyota started producing the Prius, and has since been cleaned up to a remarkable degree. Furthermore, Toyota only buys 1% of the nickel mined in Sudbury. To blame the entire pollution produced there on Toyota is like blaming the Iraq war on Hummer because of the oil we need to run them.

Second, I don’t think that the original article considered at all the post-production cost to the environment. Probably, because it is hard to quantify. But, even Bush is starting to admit that global warming is real and human caused. If there is a large-scale effort to try to reverse things, to try to clean up the environment to reverse some of the climate change we’ve caused, shouldn’t those costs be added to the Hummer’s cost of driving? I’m guessing, based on how much more CO2 those spew, it would far outweigh any pollution Toyota is responsible for by purchasing 1% of the nickel produced in a relatively clean mine in Canada.

Finally, in looking for sites discussing the original article, I couldn’t help but note the comments people left on sites hosting it and the bile in their comments. There were comments like “there isn’t anything that makes me happier than seeing a Prius broken down on the side of the road” and other things like that. These people really hate the Prius. And it makes me wonder why. They claim it is because of the in-your-face “environmentalism” the Prius represents. To be honest, Lisa and I bought our Prius for a simple fact: it uses less gas. I drive ~40 miles each way to work and I just wanted something that uses less gas, both for my pocket book (though, to be honest, the extra cost of the Prius means it will be a while before I break even there) and for the environment (why spew as much crap if I don’t have to). But these people seem threatened by the car. I’m guessing it reminds them of how crappy their cars do and how they aren’t willing to do anything to help fix the problem. Just because some of us try to do at least a little bit to make things better for the climate and environment, doesn’t mean these people have to feel so threatened.

But, if you want to talk about an in-your-face vehicle, what is the Hummer? Is there a vehicle that is more in-your-face than that one? Why does anyone but the military need such a beast? Aren’t Hummer drivers showing the rest of us (a) how much money they have to afford such a thing and (b) how little they care about the rest of us, in terms of sharing the road and using resources?

Blah, blah, blah… I've got the blahs.