So that leads me to my question: why all the lawyer hate? I’m not so naive as to think that all lawyers are good, but I would say the vast majority of lawyers do their job in an ethical manner. Of course, what can you really expect? The news tends to focus on the bad lawyers as opposed to the good lawyers, right? Even so, I think lawyers still catch a lot more flak than they should. Think about it. The news reports on stories about teachers molesting their students, about doctors behaving unethically on a regular basis. Yet, no one ever demands that these professions be severely limited nor do they call these professions scum.

I suppose, at the root of it all, I’m just insulted. It’s one thing to criticize my intended profession, but it’s something altogether different when people say to my face that all lawyers are the root of all the problems that this country faces (everything from the Interstate Highway system to the War on Terror). In fact, I’m a sellout for working with someone that has opposing political views! In fact, my focus on commercial law makes me too “practical” (told to me in a negative manner)! Maybe lawyers should just do everything pro bono.

Oh wait, pro bono doesn’t pay the bills.

1. I’ve graduated from law school, and
2. I’ve moved back to CA.

The first one I am particularly proud of. After three long years of toiling, I’ve managed to get my juris doctorate. Granted, I have yet to do anything with it, but, nonetheless, I am proud of my accomplishment. Now, I just have to get over the “you’re not studying!” guilt-meter that law school installed in my brain.

The trip was actually kind of fun. I decided to drive the entire 2500+ mile trip back to CA. My brother and I took the I-80 to the I-70 to the I-15 to get back. We drove through Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Utah, Arizona and Nevada. The trip back was actually pretty efficient. We woke up, drove, stopped, slept. Rinse and repeat for three and half days. I’d actually like to do it again (not anytime soon) so that I could do some exploring. All-in-all, a pretty good trip.

The trip back marked the end of a particular phase of my life. I can’t be a responsibility-free student anymore. I just have to figure out what to do for the rest of it. The only thing I’ve figured out is: 1) find a job, 2) work said job, 3) ??????, 4) profit.

We see this as a film … [t]his is the first set-back for the heroes. … [i]n the end we know that the good guys will win, as in all movies. Source: Wired.

I don’t know what to say. This isn’t a movie? In real life, good guys don’t always win? I wonder how long his defiance will last in prison. I don’t know anything about Swedish prisons, but I figure prisons are, more or less, the same everywhere: regardless of how many “luxuries” the prisoners get, prison is no cake walk. Prison time is still hard time.

As sort of an analysis of the background chatter, everyone that supports TPB seems to say/think that what they’re doing is “OK” and that content industry needs to change. I tend to agree w/the fact that the content industry does need to change; however, people on the sidelines need to remember that they live in, for the most part, democracies. They need to vote in legislators that will change the copyright laws. In the mean time, no one should make any illusions about what they are doing: under current existing law, they are doing illegal acts. If you think information wants to be free, you have to set up the legal structures to allow for it. Courts, for the most part, interpret law and not your postings on Internet message boards.

In any case, for the uninitiated, the game puts players on an island with five traditional basic resources (wood, brick, rock/ore, sheep, wheat) and one unconventional resource (the bandit). Players are given the task of building settlements and roads in the pursuit of expanding their empires. Much of the game is centered around resources that are randomly placed on the board. Since resources are used to build roads and settlements, there is also heavy emphasis on trade. For instance, if you don’t have enough brick production, you can trade with other players for brick in exchange for whatever it is they want. The bandit is used to halt resource production (e.g. placing it on a “sheep” resource piece will halt sheep production for the adjacent settlement until someone moves it). You can also trade three resource cards for one of another kind or trade via ports (that have their own conversion rates). The last important playing piece is the … I don’t remember the name of the cards, but they allow you to take certain aspects of the game under your personal control for your turn. For example, normally, you only control the bandit when you roll a seven. There is a card that will give you control of the bandit and place it wherever you want. You can kind see where I’m going with this.

All of this is done with the sole purpose of accruing “Victory Points.” You get points for building settlements, having the biggest army (by buying bandit cards) and building the longest road (there are a few other possibilities, but I don’t recall them at the moment). Outside of those very basic rules, players can do almost whatever they want. Trade three of one resource for one resource? Sure. Use your roll w/the bandit to threaten someone into giving you resources? Not only fine, but encouraged.

I didn’t really get the feel for the game until my third play through. When the game says “you can trade for anything,” it really means it. At one point, I traded a friend futures in my ore production. Other strategies included my attempt to completely dominate two resources with careful management of the bandit and trade while playing my two other friends against each other. Even with the many options on the table, the game is still subject to a few problems. It’s really easy to figure out the two basic strategies of the game. Most players either go straight to road building or army building (biggest army or longest road = 2 victory points each). There is a middle road, but it’s harder and you have to be a little sneaky. There are apparently more “advanced techniques” for ruining friendships, but I think I’ll stick to casual play styles for now.

In the end, I really like this game. There is a heavy trade element in addition to an attack element that is carefully limited. It also teaches the power of reciprocity very quickly (keep banditing blue and they’ll find a way to screw you). You really are trying to build a civilization. Well, at least on a casual basis, anyway.

I’m about two books in and am thoroughly enjoying the stories. It’s a bit slower paced than, say, William Gibson’s Sprawl Trilogy, but the pacing isn’t really an issue. Most of the books are written from the viewpoint of Culture-based characters, thus, concepts that are normal for us (like rank and hierarchy) are completely foreign to them. I really like this aspect of the books. It’s social commentary of our value system done from the perspective of a completely detached 3rd party.

On top of the social commentary, Banks does a really good job on the actual writing of the book. There are some plot twists and some of them appear very obvious. The great thing about Banks is that he creates such a flexible enough universe so that the plot twists can easily go in any number of directions. He creates a very complex story in a very complex universe, but he writes in a very straightforward manner.The reader is very rarely left confused.

I just started the third book in the series. So far, so good.

The “characters” that you play aren’t so much a “characters” so much as they are a flowers in a city apartment that are dreaming of a dead gray field. The object of the game is to collect enough flower petals in an effort to reinvigorate those grayed out grassy fields. Control is handled through the PS3 Controller’s motion sensor. Turn the controller left (like a steering wheel) and the petals will turn left. Tilt the controller backwards and the petals will fly into the air. Overall, motion control is pretty well implemented. I am sure this game will re-open the question of whether video games can be art, but, regardless of whether that issues is settled or not, this game is still pretty fun in the mean time. The tagline, if it isn’t already, for this game should be “play and relax.” The gameplay is so soothing that when I started playing this game, I didn’t know 2-3 hours had passed. It’s a little like a good book. I wouldn’t necessarily schedule time to sit there and read a book, but if I’m between things, I’ll read the book. Same applies here.

There isn’t much variety in terms of gameplay. Some of the levels try to mix it up by having you “paint” the grass with colorful lights, but it’s just more of the same. I think the game tends to accomplish what a lot of games are missing: it finds 30 seconds of pure, rewarding fun and repeats it as often as possible without becoming repetitive.

With advanced robotics becoming cheaper and more commonplace, the challenge isn’t how we learn to accept robots—but whether we should care when they’re mistreated. And if we start caring about robot ethics, might we then go one insane step further and grant them rights? Source: Wired.

Taken from a US legalistic perspective, the simple answer would be “no.” The US Constitution only refers to “persons” and robots have not (yet) fallen under that definition. It would probably take a Constitutional amendment to confer “person-hood” status to robots, but changing the Constitution is no simple feat (Art. 5 requires both passage in Congress and 3/4 of the State’s legislatures). State Constitutions operate in a similar manner, but are easier to amend depending on the state. We’re more likely to see a state recognition of robot rights before we see a federal recognition due to those relative differences.

On the other hand, the Wired article makes a really good point about how more and more children are growing up with robotic toys and, just like my generation’s change in attitudes towards technology, perhaps those young children will have a different perspective on how we should treat robots. This change is already coming, albeit slowly, in some countries. Again, from the Wired article:

In 2007, a South Korean politician declared that his country would be the first to draw up legal guidelines on how to treat robots; the UK has also looked into the area (though nothing substantial has come of it anywhere). Source: Wired.

A more philosphical observation is that perhaps these rules are not for the machines themselves, but for our humanity. A few of the comments to the article (and the article itself) argue that as robots become more lifelike and humanlike, what does that say about a person willing to torture a robot? What does that tell us about human psychology? A more practical concern is that as machines become more intelligent, we don’t want them to do the Skynet thing by mistreating them. For now, without strong AI, robots are just toys that simulate behavior. Without that, it’s nothing more than a video game. There is no self-awareness to really hurt. No self-awareness to really consider as “person.” Person-hood implies that robots contain qualities that make them a “person.” Merely simulating emotions does not seem to be the complete picture of what a “person” is.

For the most part, players can do whatever they want. They can cheat, steal, scam, and/or kill other players with impunity. On the other hand, players can be perfect little angels. All of this unfettered-ness has resulted in an in game economy that is both prosperous and ruthlessly capitalistic. The problem is that when someone does something “illegal,” there is no recourse. There is no punishment. In this regard, the game is most unrealistic. This lack of accountability (outside of reputation) results in a situation where players, when given the opportunity, will steal billions of the in-game currency. It has also resulted in mercenary assassination guilds being formed that cause massive harm to other guilds and players. While many players and critics laud the hands off approach that the developers take, one of my two criticisms (the other being more related to game mechanics) is that there really doesn’t appear to be rule of law. If you get scammed through a misrepresentation, then too bad. You should have known better. Many say that the economic decisions you should make are similar to real life financial decisions. As the Wiki states:

Such dangers are an inherent part of Eve Online’s virtual economy and thus are purposely not dealt with by the developers. Players are expected to make financial decisions based (among other factors) on the possibility of other players’ financial malpractice, much like in real-life economics. Source: Wikipedia.

The problem is that in real life, those bad actors get punished and people recover some, if not all, of their money. Granted, yes, I get it. It’s a video game and it wouldn’t be much fun unless there is some allowable mischief. Even WoW allows some level of “illegal” behavior (e.g. assassination guilds) on their RP-ing servers in addition to the time-honored practice of ganking. Imposing some kind of rule of law requirement would likely hinder the gameplay, but I can’t see the situation where players can literally steal billions of the in-game currency as a good set up. Is there a way for the in-game companies to recover? Is there a way to punish the bad actor? Or more precisely, is there a way for the in-game companies to tangibly police their rank-in-file? Correct me if I’m wrong (I haven’t played the game seriously) but from what I can tell, there really is no way to do any of the above.

Then again, I suppose that’s part of what makes the game fun. Even just thinking about the prospect of playing the game however you want sans lore is appealing to me. I start my own mining corporation. I can be a smuggler. I can be a hired gun. I can even become a pirate. The game offers a veritable wild west in space where survival is based on guns and wits. What the game offers me is very appealing in terms of the possibilities it offers, but thinking that it is a pure capitalist market economy is a little inaccurate. Even capitalist economies have rule of law where thievery and misrepresentation are not tolerated. It’s implying that a pure capitalist economy in the real world would allow thievery and misrepresentation. Even my most ardent radical capitalism supporting friends wouldn’t agree with that.

The game is set in a Lovecraftian city where all sorts of portals to unknown lore related extra-dimensional locations spring up. The point of the game is to close the portals and kill the monsters that come from those portals before the countdown timer runs out. Oh, did I mention there was a countdown? At the beginning of the game, you randomly draw an ultimate evil and, depending on which you draw, the instant game will be limited by the corresponding number of rounds. To “win,” you either have to seal all portals before you run out of rounds or you can simply fight the “ultimate evil” or you simply lose if you pick the wrong ultimate evil. Strategy-wise, your group is basically working together and has to decide to either attempt to shut down portals or to bulk up with the intention of killing the ultimate evil. There is a lot of long term thinking involved due to the round limitations. Luck is also factored into it in the form of rolling dice and drawing random cards. For example, one of our party members was completely debilitated by a curse that he could not remove for the entire game. That curse he had basically lost us the game.

Overall, a rather complicated game with complicated mechanics, but really easy to pick up and learn while you play.