Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Geeking Out Old School Style (or, The Irony of Playing 8-bit Nintendo, DOS and C64 Games on the Internet)

Now, I've been an emulator boy for years. If I search through my files, I can find three different Commodore 64/128 emulators, as well as ones for the Nintendo, Super Nintendo and the original Sega System. I play my 360 and my Playstation 2 (no, I haven't found the desire to pay for a PS3 yet) on a fairly regular basis, as well as my World of Warcraft... but I also go through periods where I will spend a month or two doing nothing but playing old, out-dated software (especially Wasteland, the D&D Pool of Radiance series, Autoduel and Bard's Tale...oh, and the Infocom text adventures).

I've discovered something new and, for me, extraordinary.

All of those emulators...online, in a java-base, with more game options than any ROM library could offer.

Now, yes, I know these sites I'm finding have probably been around for a long, long while... but I've somehow missed them in my emulator searches. I never thought to look for browser-based emulation.

So, I've now spent a few late nights playing around with a smorgasbord of Nintendo games, Sid Meiers "Pirates", StarCon (the first one) and trying out games I'd never even known existed.

It has (quite figuratively) been one, long wet dream come true.

Now, if I could only find the full Space Quest series (or any of the Quest series, but I've always been more of a Roger Wilco fan) or a copy of Zork: Grand Inquisitor, I'd be giddy as the school kid I was when I played them all the first time.

Walking a Fine Line (or, The Market Building Vendors Versus the City of Roanoke)

It's been building up to this for a few weeks and now it's finally out in the open...

The Market Building vendors have a lawyer and they're not afraid to use him.

Nine out of the ten vendors have banded together to sue the city for negligence in their capacity as land lord of the Market Building. As stated on the Roanoke Times site, they are seeking damages for lost income during the two week closure of the building, as well as determining what level of responsibility they will have regarding the repairs made.

It would seem the proverbial gauntlet has been thrown.

Now, I'm not going to try to contemplate their chances of success with the lawsuit. I would hazard a guess that it is quite likely they will win some compensation.

However, they are now placing themselves in a rather precarious situation. The relations between the vendors and the city officials is already strained, at best, given the recent closure and the discussion to potentially close the building early next year. This may very well be the fire that incinerates every bridge between the two parties.

Anita Wilson's statement concerning this being an act to begin negotiation, not litigation is diplomatic enough. Still, the City won't see it that way. Certainly, Harris and Lea might be of a mind to negotiate a settlement, given their staunch support of the building and its current vendors. However, most of the council members will probably take note of any funds spent during the course of this process, either through a negotiated or awarded settlement... or through the simple costs, both in time and money, researching and fighting the lawsuit. And they aren't going to be overly ecstatic with the vendors for being forced into a series of expenditures.

In respects, even with a win, it could work out poorly for the vendors, most of whom have leases expiring within the next four to six months (Hong Kong's renewal is the next to be discussed at next week's council meeting). This action by the vendors may make it less likely that any leases will be renewed... and with the recent events, the City could use any legitimate reason to deny the renewals (including plans to clear the building for renovations).

I wish the vendors the best in this endeavor and I hope it won't have any negative impact on their futures. However, these are choppy waters they've just entered and they'll need to tread the currents carefully to come out intact.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Red Tidings (or, A Few Quick Lines on Marine Aquariums and Museums)

I visited the Science Museum today for the first time in over a year.

There is still cyanobacter in the Marine Aquarium display. Tons of it.

Now, mind you, with whatever money was spent on their new aquatic display with both the Fresh and shallow Marine petting tank, you would think they could have had someone clean the wall display.

Honestly, your average saltwater hobbyist, upon discovering the existence of cyanobacter (red slime 'algae') in their aquarium, is going to fight it. It doesn't take much, really... a few doses of erythromycin to kill a portion of it whilst conducting a thorough siphoning of one's substrate, followed by the application of greater flow (through the use of powerhead) and some sort of protein skimmer to reduce the dissolved organics. It seems like a great deal, but, realistically, you could accomplish all of that and purchase a moderately high-end skimmer for about $500.

So, why can't our Science Museum cough up such a small amount to make their display presentable?

And, no, this isn't the usual fare with which I started the blog. However, it has been irritating me since I saw it and needed to have a little rant to clear it from my system.

This is the downside to having worked in the Pet Industry... particularly with aquatics.

Friday, October 10, 2008

The Market Frenzy (or, How the Economy Falters Under Consumer Fear)

I'm not an economist, not by any stretch of the imagination. Even with some of the reading I've done recently, I don't have the best grasp of the concepts involved, which is odd, as I've always had a penchant for theoretical mathematics (albeit, I doubt the market works under the principles one finds in Chaos mathematics and Fuzzy Logic, even though it seems it might).

What I have come to understand, however, is that invested funds, either in a simple interest bearing bank account, piled into CD's, IRA's, stocks, bonds, etc., are the pillars of our economic system. The institutions holding these funds are using them as their financial backing and, to a degree, their worth. Without the money of the individual citizen, these organizations, companies and institutions cannot effectively operate.

This is where fear takes its toll.

A large financal entity starts to crash... and we, as consumers, read our daily news, which always has the worst to say. We wonder about our savings, our investements... we worry about losing them, of course, which is an understandable reaction. We react by pulling our funds out of the hands of the institutions in order to save whatever scraps we can.

And the system continues to fail.

What we don't do is the 'math'. We don't take into account the consequences of our actions. Imagine the following example:

The economy starts to buckle, as it is now. Fifty million citizens begin pulling their funds out of the market. Let's say, between varying incomes, fiscal personalities and lifestyles, the average funds pulled are $50, 000 per citizen.

That's $2,500,000,000,000. Yes, two and a half trillion dollars. Right out of the market, no longer in the system.

It would scare the hell out of me at only twenty percent of that amount, because that is some of the money fueling the success of our economy.

Now, I don't entirely agree with our seven hundred billion dollar bailout... not in the overall practice of it, at least, but the theory is sound. If we pour money into the system, it should help to stabilize it. It's exactly what the government did during the Great Depression, albeit a few years later than they should have (I believe it was 1932 when they pushed money into the banks). It began part of the process that pulled our economy back on track. It worked... and it's exactly what they're trying to do now.

We, as citizens, might not appreciate the use of our tax dollars in this venture. We might cry out, "Why save those who made the bad decisions? Why should they profit when we, the poor, the middle class, lose everything we've worked to gain?"

It's a simple answer. If they don't, we will be exactly where we were at the beginning of the Depression. And there won't be any blame to cast on a single target. It's not the fault of Presidents, current or past nor the fault of any political party or faction. It's our fault, however, if we continue to pull our money out of the system.

And it's fear, again. A fear we need to control, lest it cause further, irreparable damage.

As for me, personally, I'm in the lower income bracket. I don't have a savings account or a stock portfolio. I don't have any immediate money to lose. However, a wounded, dying economy means a weaker job market... it means my employer may go out of business. It means myself, and many others who aren't immediately affected, will be unable to readily support our families.

I've read some of the books...I've watched history documentaries. I, for one, do not wish to relive what my great-grandfathers experienced. I'd rather handle the fear of the present situation and let it slide on by than deal with the fear of being unable to provide for myself and my family.

So, no, I'm not an economist. I'm a simple 'working class' man who offers this advice: Don't pull the supporting pillars out from under the institutions, no matter how much you might distrust them at present. You'll lose much, much more in the long run than you will right now... and I'm not referring to just monetary matters.

Sunday, October 5, 2008

98+% (or, Probability Matrices and the Race for the Presidency)

I just spent the better part of the last hour playing around with a few of the 'electoral prediction' web pages. From my understanding, the information used to determine the probability of a state voting a certain way is compiled from recent polling data. Most of the pages seem to use a determination factor that allows states with wide margins of support for a particular candidate to always swing towards their preferred candidate, whilst the the swing states are an entirely random factor using the range of marginal errors in the polling data.

Most of the pages are rather concrete in the electoral maps they provide. The only one that seems to have any constant change is the one at http://www.270towin.com/simulation/. They allow you to run the simulation repeatedly and maintain a database of the last 1,000 simulations available for view. At present, they've produced the lowest probability for an Obama win... at 98.1%.

Now, the 98% range seems to be the common number, ranging from the .1 of 270towin's to around .6 on some other sites. Mind you, this is in the 'if an election were to happen today' case. There are any number of events that could change the outcome.

However, given the above information, which is readily available to anyone who can use a search engine, one has to wonder about the McCain campaign's recent strategy decision. With only 30 days to go until the election, now is not the time to start assaulting the character of your opponent. Certainly, the "Swift Boat" tactic worked against Kerry, but that started early in the campaign and was left virtually unchallenged. The amount of time and media coverage it was given allowed it to play a role in swinging the vote to the Bush. A mere 30 days, however, is not enough time for any sort of negative campaigning to work... not when your opponent has a commanding lead.

Mind you, I'm more liberally-minded, so I'm not against an Obama win. I'm simply of the opinion that now would be the time for the McCain faction to push their plans and policy proposals, focusing on their merits while establishing the concrete fallicies in Obama's. An attempt to drag Obama through the mud at this late hour comes across only as a tactic of desperation... a clear sign that the McCain campaign is in serious jeapordy.

A Statement of Goals (or, Theoretically a Good Idea, but Something I Probably won't Accomplish)

It's been a week since I first created this blog in a desire to post in a more public medium, as opposed to my Myspace account, which is not as readily reachable. I always seem to have a great deal to say; however, I never really take the time to say it or, worse, the time to actually research an issue before I open my mouth when I do speak up.

The purpose of this blog will, hopefully, rectify my lack of both personal education and speaking my mind more often. Earlier today, I was thinking I would try to push for one post a day, working with mostly political issues and then branching outward into other subjects. If, one day, I have a relatively mediocre-sized following of readers, I will poll them for topics they would like to see.

Once a day, however, is an incredible commitment for me. Between a job, two children and the preparations to head back to college this spring, I find myself lacking the time (and the discipline) to spend studying site after site of material. So, perhaps once a week would be a better idea.

As per my usual style, this blog is rambling a bit. As part of my experience, I would like to experiment with new styles of writing and, perhaps, find one better suited for discussing the sorts of topics I'd like to tackle.

So, as it is... once a week with a randomly chosen topic. I don't have the 'verbal' personality of some of the local bloggers nor do I have their levels of education. I don't expect to have a wide reader base. In fact, I'm not certain what I'm expecting from this blog, other than to develop my own knowledge.

We'll see how well I stick to it.