The debate "Who would win in a battle, pirates or a ninja?" has been the cause of countless fights between geeks who would only care about matters such as this, me being one of them. This argument arose around the same time as internet chat rooms, though the roots of this hideous plant started before then.
In 1989, Atari released Skull & Crossbones, a video game that allowed players to play as pirates who fought groups of ninja. It was no doubt due to this release that the seeds of the conflict took root, though it is possible for it to have started before then.
Enough background. Who really would win? Several have tried to analyze the strategies of the opposing sides before, but I have not seen any that have done so thorough a job as http://www.ninjapirate.com/battle.html, though this website may seem a little biased towards the ninja. Despite the possible favoritism, I agree with thilo, the assumed author of the linked site, in that, even though he never comments on who would actually win, the ninja would be victorious.
Several factors have to be taken into account. Of course, fighting prowess is a major one. But the subtle differences might be what could make the biggest upset in a fight. As stated by thilo, pirates are smelly, loud, and, assuming the stereotype is correct, impaired in vision and mobility. Ninja are "nonexistent" (otherwise he is not a ninja at all), so therefore quiet, and very mobile and agile. Pirates are brutes and may overcome any obstacle with raw power, but ninja are great tactictians, observing their targets for a great time before making a move, which is usually a killing blow done in a split second. Pirates tend to enjoy being inebriated, so even if the ninja were defeated, they may only be made prisoners, which would allow time for the ninja to plan their escape while the pirates got drunk and pillaged.
The pen is mightier than the sword and brain overcomes brawn. Ironic how ninja weild swords, typically that is, though blades in general are used quite often (shurikens), and superior brain power over pirates.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Entergy is Picky
My dad is a lineman for Entergy of Arkansas. He has been doing this kind of work for close to twice my age. He first started as a lineman in southern Texas in the '80's. The most advanced piece of equipment was a truck full of sub-par tools. He literally climbed poles and put his life in danger every day for barely more than minimum wage. He knows (nearly) everything there is to know about everything that is related to his work.
Coming to Arkansas in 2000, he had to make major adjustments. For one thing, there are bucket trucks here. A truck that climbs for you?! Wow! Had it not been for all his prior experience, he would have had to start a "greenhorn." He had to learn all the company's procedures and techniques and the "proper" ways of completing the tasks he was assigned. No problem.
Recently, there was a problem. He had to go clean up and replace a damaged line, which would cause him to deepen the rut he walks every day. Arriving at the sight, he saw that the line was lying across the street. As most people know, live power lines are feisty. They will shake and spark and sputter all over the place until the juice runs dry. This massive snake was dead. So Dad began to remove the line from the street. This is the part where he begins to "get dumped on."
He did not check to make sure the line was dead before he began maintenance, which is against company policy. "I'm not an idiot, son, I know if a line is live and I know that that one wasn't," Entergy found out about this "ignorance and stupidity" and forced unpaid leave on him.
During this "break," he began to make his case, going back to the sight, reliving everything and recording it. His hearing came up and he made his case. The company's only argument was, "It was against company policy," which is to say they knew he was right but because he did not do things by the book, he got demoted and, in his own words, screwed.
Sometimes Goliath falls on David. Who wins then?
Coming to Arkansas in 2000, he had to make major adjustments. For one thing, there are bucket trucks here. A truck that climbs for you?! Wow! Had it not been for all his prior experience, he would have had to start a "greenhorn." He had to learn all the company's procedures and techniques and the "proper" ways of completing the tasks he was assigned. No problem.
Recently, there was a problem. He had to go clean up and replace a damaged line, which would cause him to deepen the rut he walks every day. Arriving at the sight, he saw that the line was lying across the street. As most people know, live power lines are feisty. They will shake and spark and sputter all over the place until the juice runs dry. This massive snake was dead. So Dad began to remove the line from the street. This is the part where he begins to "get dumped on."
He did not check to make sure the line was dead before he began maintenance, which is against company policy. "I'm not an idiot, son, I know if a line is live and I know that that one wasn't," Entergy found out about this "ignorance and stupidity" and forced unpaid leave on him.
During this "break," he began to make his case, going back to the sight, reliving everything and recording it. His hearing came up and he made his case. The company's only argument was, "It was against company policy," which is to say they knew he was right but because he did not do things by the book, he got demoted and, in his own words, screwed.
Sometimes Goliath falls on David. Who wins then?
The Power of I and I
Being quiet and reserved most of the time, I am hardly ever subject to opportunities that would require me to "take a stand," though I do remember a time when third grade Braden did so.
"Time to put your books away, kids. Class time," the substitute spouted. This was wrong. We were given 30 minutes every morning to read before we even recited the pledge of allegiance. It was early in the morning, so I figured she may have skimmed over that part in the lesson plan.
"Uh... Miss? The teacher lets us read for a while first. Is she not going to let us today?"
"Uh... Kid? Your teacher is not here and she left a lot for us to do today. So put your book up and pay attention."
A little unnecessary, but I wasn't going to argue further on that subject. The substitute conducted class in the worst way, the other kids in class agreed. A few of them also tried to let her know that her age was not an excuse for mishaps. She would not have it. None of us had recess that day. I would not have been fazed over this, being an indoor kid, but it was the way she denied us, with so much unjust authority, that angered me.
Sitting in my desk at five past noon felt weird. The other classes kids' squeals did not help any. She told us to get out our books and read, as punishment. That was it.
Substitute had cut short our reading earlier in the day, even when it was evident we wanted to and were allowed to (which should have been evident, but apparently was not). This went against our regular teacher. Substitute stole our recess. This went against the school. Substituting recess for reading as punishment was so wrong I started laughing out loud.
"What's so funny?"
I would type the conversation but third grade logic isn't the most comprehensible thing, and I do not remember everything. My argument made complete sense to myself and my fellows but, again, she wouldn't have it. Within three hours of freedom, she sent me to the warden's office. I explained myself to the principal and for whatever reason, she agreed with me.
I have not seen that substitute to this day. I would feel bad about snitching... but I don't. She deserved it and I still find it funny.
"Time to put your books away, kids. Class time," the substitute spouted. This was wrong. We were given 30 minutes every morning to read before we even recited the pledge of allegiance. It was early in the morning, so I figured she may have skimmed over that part in the lesson plan.
"Uh... Miss? The teacher lets us read for a while first. Is she not going to let us today?"
"Uh... Kid? Your teacher is not here and she left a lot for us to do today. So put your book up and pay attention."
A little unnecessary, but I wasn't going to argue further on that subject. The substitute conducted class in the worst way, the other kids in class agreed. A few of them also tried to let her know that her age was not an excuse for mishaps. She would not have it. None of us had recess that day. I would not have been fazed over this, being an indoor kid, but it was the way she denied us, with so much unjust authority, that angered me.
Sitting in my desk at five past noon felt weird. The other classes kids' squeals did not help any. She told us to get out our books and read, as punishment. That was it.
Substitute had cut short our reading earlier in the day, even when it was evident we wanted to and were allowed to (which should have been evident, but apparently was not). This went against our regular teacher. Substitute stole our recess. This went against the school. Substituting recess for reading as punishment was so wrong I started laughing out loud.
"What's so funny?"
I would type the conversation but third grade logic isn't the most comprehensible thing, and I do not remember everything. My argument made complete sense to myself and my fellows but, again, she wouldn't have it. Within three hours of freedom, she sent me to the warden's office. I explained myself to the principal and for whatever reason, she agreed with me.
I have not seen that substitute to this day. I would feel bad about snitching... but I don't. She deserved it and I still find it funny.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
FAHRENHEIT 451 by Ray Bradbury
"'Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more minorities... The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any(body)...anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!... Authors full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did. Magazines became a nice blend of vanilla tapioca. Books, so the... snobbish critics said, were dishwater... It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God.'"
Addressing Montag's concerns, while shattering (at least denting) his world at the same time, Captain Beatty, chief fireman, explains, among other things, his and Montag's profession. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, like 1984, is a look into an alternate terrifying future, the theme of Bradbury's being, "What if firemen started fires and being literate was basically a crime,"
His shift over, Montag begins heading home. On the way, he meets Clarisse McClellan, a peculiar young girl who, through a couple conversations, instigates Montag's questioning. "Why do firemen burn books," being the most prominent question.
Through several events, including a house and all the occupants of it being burned and Montag's secret being revealed, Montag meets a professor named Faber, who helps him realize what must be done for people to learn to live to a fuller extent again, rather than to just be content with simplicity and entertainment. Ironic how Faber and Montag believe to truly live, you must become learned (not necessarily literate though), as opposed to the "current" trend of driving vehicles in excess of one hundred miles an hour, among other favorite pastimes. Formulating a plan to topple the firemen hierarchy and renew an interest in learning and thinking, Faber and Montag take the beginning steps of that journey. This being a short story ("dime novel," according to Bradbury), not much can be written in a review without giving a lot of the plot away.
However, I will hop all the way around these spoilers. Clarisse is at the center of a problem that affects and plagues Montag, he never learning the true resolution to the problem. Faber assists Montag in formulating battle plans and executing them against the firemen, Montag being the inside man, Faber being inside Montag's ear. The Mechanical Hound, the firehouse's "mascot," trails Montag and is the cause of a compromising problem for him, which ends up having to be solved with fire and death.
In a world where nobody tries to change the standardized way of living, where everybody is satisfied with not reading, Montag takes a stand. He feels as if something is missing from his life and books being the only obvious thing actually missing from it, he pursues saving them. This he does, going against his wife, his coworkers, even the world's ways in general.
Fahrenheit 451 is comparable to Isaac Asimov's "The Feeling of Power," in the sense that in both short stories, a method of learning that has been with humanity for at least a thousand years each, reading and mathematics that is, is forgotten/done away with. Despite both being set in the future, these stories have the potential to teach a lot about the current/constant human condition. If that is too cryptic, read the stories and then prove me wrong. With that said, I recommend this book.
Addressing Montag's concerns, while shattering (at least denting) his world at the same time, Captain Beatty, chief fireman, explains, among other things, his and Montag's profession. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury, like 1984, is a look into an alternate terrifying future, the theme of Bradbury's being, "What if firemen started fires and being literate was basically a crime,"
His shift over, Montag begins heading home. On the way, he meets Clarisse McClellan, a peculiar young girl who, through a couple conversations, instigates Montag's questioning. "Why do firemen burn books," being the most prominent question.
Through several events, including a house and all the occupants of it being burned and Montag's secret being revealed, Montag meets a professor named Faber, who helps him realize what must be done for people to learn to live to a fuller extent again, rather than to just be content with simplicity and entertainment. Ironic how Faber and Montag believe to truly live, you must become learned (not necessarily literate though), as opposed to the "current" trend of driving vehicles in excess of one hundred miles an hour, among other favorite pastimes. Formulating a plan to topple the firemen hierarchy and renew an interest in learning and thinking, Faber and Montag take the beginning steps of that journey. This being a short story ("dime novel," according to Bradbury), not much can be written in a review without giving a lot of the plot away.
However, I will hop all the way around these spoilers. Clarisse is at the center of a problem that affects and plagues Montag, he never learning the true resolution to the problem. Faber assists Montag in formulating battle plans and executing them against the firemen, Montag being the inside man, Faber being inside Montag's ear. The Mechanical Hound, the firehouse's "mascot," trails Montag and is the cause of a compromising problem for him, which ends up having to be solved with fire and death.
In a world where nobody tries to change the standardized way of living, where everybody is satisfied with not reading, Montag takes a stand. He feels as if something is missing from his life and books being the only obvious thing actually missing from it, he pursues saving them. This he does, going against his wife, his coworkers, even the world's ways in general.
Fahrenheit 451 is comparable to Isaac Asimov's "The Feeling of Power," in the sense that in both short stories, a method of learning that has been with humanity for at least a thousand years each, reading and mathematics that is, is forgotten/done away with. Despite both being set in the future, these stories have the potential to teach a lot about the current/constant human condition. If that is too cryptic, read the stories and then prove me wrong. With that said, I recommend this book.
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST By Ken Kesey
"Ting. Tingle, tingle, tremble toes, she's a good fisherman, catches hens, puts 'em inna pens . . . wire blier, limber lock, three geese inna flock . . . one flew east, one flew west, one flew over the cuckoo's nest . . . O-U-T spells out . . . goose swoops down and plucks you out."
Ken Kesey's One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest compelled me with its excellence to read it completely in three days, all 617 pages. This may not be viewed as something to be proud of, but as I haven't read a book that thick in so short a time in a while, I'm proud.
This book is set in a bleak insane asylum (not much color is ever present, other than white, and the only variations between rooms are the furniture/appliances), told through the perspective/mind of Chief Broom, A.K.A. Chief Bromden, A.K.A. The Chief, a massive Indian who is deaf and mute. Though he could be argued to be the main character, since his psyche is closely evaluated while reading this book, since the book is his thoughts, Randle Patrick McMurphy could just as easily be viewed as the same, if not just the protagonist. The Big Nurse is THE bad guy, with several cronies and wards to aid her in suppressing the patients. McMurphy is a late arrival to the hospital, but with him comes hope, amongst other things that change everybody affiliated with the hospital permanently.
Cuckoo's Nest, despite being placed in a serious setting with serious undertones, is actually a very funny book at times. Being told by a "mentally unstable" Indian who does nothing but observe and has nothing but time to pay attention, with all seriousness in retelling the story, comedy is prevalent occasionally. Hardly any, IF any, details are omitted in the "retelling" of the story; details so vivid exist that there was no need for a movie to be made, if only the potential viewers could have the determination to read the whole book and the understanding required to experience it fully (this being a somewhat complicated book to follow at times, to say the least). This book is unlike others, in the sense that dramatic irony is hardly, if ever, present. The Chief tells the story as it goes, only foreshadowing occasionally; the readers never know (much of) anything about other characters until the potential things have happened/are happening. If the sentence, "The dog runs," was present in the book, it would be written something like: "Four legs bounding through the dew, the beast, our best friend, flees from the light of the moon," That is to say that there is never a lack of detail and the meaning of a sentence is not always spelled out. Sometimes the readers must be able to piece together the given information to understand a section, which pulls the reader in more, makes us more involved in the reading. And because the narrator is indeed a mental patient, some of the "unexplainable" events that take place are explained by Bromden, who is full of paranoia and fear ("the fog machine").
Because the narrator knows all the characters on a personal basis, and is not merely an observer nor the creator of them, the characters are told in the same manner as if you were to read a short biography of them, if The Chief's descriptions are not more detailed. Even the Vegetables (each group of patient is labeled by the caretakers), who are what their title suggests, are explained with enough detail to make the reader feel as though he is looking at them, knows them enough to consider them an "acquaintance."
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is indeed a critical necessity to any (Viking's) library. I have been lucky enough this year to have the following statement follow many, most, of my reviews: this book is worth reading a good several times.
Ken Kesey's One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest compelled me with its excellence to read it completely in three days, all 617 pages. This may not be viewed as something to be proud of, but as I haven't read a book that thick in so short a time in a while, I'm proud.
This book is set in a bleak insane asylum (not much color is ever present, other than white, and the only variations between rooms are the furniture/appliances), told through the perspective/mind of Chief Broom, A.K.A. Chief Bromden, A.K.A. The Chief, a massive Indian who is deaf and mute. Though he could be argued to be the main character, since his psyche is closely evaluated while reading this book, since the book is his thoughts, Randle Patrick McMurphy could just as easily be viewed as the same, if not just the protagonist. The Big Nurse is THE bad guy, with several cronies and wards to aid her in suppressing the patients. McMurphy is a late arrival to the hospital, but with him comes hope, amongst other things that change everybody affiliated with the hospital permanently.
Cuckoo's Nest, despite being placed in a serious setting with serious undertones, is actually a very funny book at times. Being told by a "mentally unstable" Indian who does nothing but observe and has nothing but time to pay attention, with all seriousness in retelling the story, comedy is prevalent occasionally. Hardly any, IF any, details are omitted in the "retelling" of the story; details so vivid exist that there was no need for a movie to be made, if only the potential viewers could have the determination to read the whole book and the understanding required to experience it fully (this being a somewhat complicated book to follow at times, to say the least). This book is unlike others, in the sense that dramatic irony is hardly, if ever, present. The Chief tells the story as it goes, only foreshadowing occasionally; the readers never know (much of) anything about other characters until the potential things have happened/are happening. If the sentence, "The dog runs," was present in the book, it would be written something like: "Four legs bounding through the dew, the beast, our best friend, flees from the light of the moon," That is to say that there is never a lack of detail and the meaning of a sentence is not always spelled out. Sometimes the readers must be able to piece together the given information to understand a section, which pulls the reader in more, makes us more involved in the reading. And because the narrator is indeed a mental patient, some of the "unexplainable" events that take place are explained by Bromden, who is full of paranoia and fear ("the fog machine").
Because the narrator knows all the characters on a personal basis, and is not merely an observer nor the creator of them, the characters are told in the same manner as if you were to read a short biography of them, if The Chief's descriptions are not more detailed. Even the Vegetables (each group of patient is labeled by the caretakers), who are what their title suggests, are explained with enough detail to make the reader feel as though he is looking at them, knows them enough to consider them an "acquaintance."
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is indeed a critical necessity to any (Viking's) library. I have been lucky enough this year to have the following statement follow many, most, of my reviews: this book is worth reading a good several times.
What Makes A Leader A True Leader?
A person may consider himself a leader if he has the ability to draw a crowd and lead them. Logical enough: a leader is one who leads. But I believe there is more to it than just being able to consider yourself a ringleader conducting the clowns.
A true leader does not look out for number one alone. Casualties (figurative or not) are looked upon with sadness through the eyes of a true leader. "As long as it gets me where I want to go," is a thought that never enters his brain. "How can I defeat OUR enemies with the smallest number of my people losing the ultimate battle," is.
Charisma is a must for a follower to climb to the top, without a doubt. How this trait is used is what is important. Charisma is "a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charisma). Hitler had charisma and he was a "great leader," nearly leading his Nazis to victory. But his gift was abused. He was the one with the initial thought of, "I'm better than them," and through strongarming (muscling his "virtues" into others) and brainwashing, eventually gained a following.
A true leader is one who finds others who shares his beliefs, virtues, values, ideals, etc. These others who "follow" his way of thinking may wish to gain power in a society, one of many motives that would require a leader/group. If his "people" wish to omit the quotations, then he will have their full support from the start, another sign of a true leader (or a completely evil genius, the difference must be determined without bias).
Julius Caesar is seen as both. He was a brilliant general and a sufficient leader (at least) who led Rome to great power. Sounds like a true leader. The other side to that though is the fact that to get to where he was/Rome where he led it, he killed several million people, "not much better than Hitler."
What Makes A Leader A True Leader is how people view him, how his motives and accomplishments (with ethics (or something else completely unbiased, since ethics are not universal) as the trays) weigh out.
A true leader does not look out for number one alone. Casualties (figurative or not) are looked upon with sadness through the eyes of a true leader. "As long as it gets me where I want to go," is a thought that never enters his brain. "How can I defeat OUR enemies with the smallest number of my people losing the ultimate battle," is.
Charisma is a must for a follower to climb to the top, without a doubt. How this trait is used is what is important. Charisma is "a spiritual power or personal quality that gives an individual influence or authority over large numbers of people" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charisma). Hitler had charisma and he was a "great leader," nearly leading his Nazis to victory. But his gift was abused. He was the one with the initial thought of, "I'm better than them," and through strongarming (muscling his "virtues" into others) and brainwashing, eventually gained a following.
A true leader is one who finds others who shares his beliefs, virtues, values, ideals, etc. These others who "follow" his way of thinking may wish to gain power in a society, one of many motives that would require a leader/group. If his "people" wish to omit the quotations, then he will have their full support from the start, another sign of a true leader (or a completely evil genius, the difference must be determined without bias).
Julius Caesar is seen as both. He was a brilliant general and a sufficient leader (at least) who led Rome to great power. Sounds like a true leader. The other side to that though is the fact that to get to where he was/Rome where he led it, he killed several million people, "not much better than Hitler."
What Makes A Leader A True Leader is how people view him, how his motives and accomplishments (with ethics (or something else completely unbiased, since ethics are not universal) as the trays) weigh out.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
JULIUS CAESAR By William Shakespeare
Supernatural events take place in Julius Caesar. In Act I, Scene III of the play, Casca has been witness to several omens, relaying them to Cicero in a manner most frightened. “But never till tonight, never till now, Did I go through a tempest dropping fire. - A common slave...Held up his left hand, which did flame and burn Like twenty torches joined; and yet his hand, Not sensible of fire, remained unscorched. - Against the Capitol I met a lion, Who glazed upon me and went surly by Without annoying me. - ...they saw Men all in fire walk up and down the streets. And yesterday the bird of night did sit Even at noonday upon the marketplace,” In Act IV, Scene III, the Ghost of Caesar appears to Brutus, stating they will meet again at Philippi.
One criticism of some literature is that it relies too heavily on the use of the supernatural to advance the plot or provide foreshadowing. Julius Caesar is validly criticized in this way.
Neither of the examples I have provided can really be considered necessary for the preservation of the story; that is, without these excerpts, the story would be relatively the same, without much being lost.
However, Act I’s supernatural sequence is nothing but foreshadowing, as is the second example. Hardly any other methods are taken to foreshadow events. In Scene II of the first Act, a Soothsayer warns Caesar to beware the Ides of March, a soothsayer being one who can see the future.
Even Calphurnia’s account of her dreams to Caesar, horrible events taking place suggest something is wrong (Act II, Scene II), is considered to be supernatural, as it includes a lioness roaming the streets of Rome, zombies and warriors fighting with fire (as their weapons) in the sky.
The supernatural is not the only way Shakespeare conveys foreshadowing though. Act III, Scene I: Brutus shakes the hands of the conspirators, drenching his hand in his fallen comrade's (Caesar's) blood (who fell to the conspirators) beforehand, marking them all for death and later, after the conspirators left, he vows to avenge him.
Although the majority of the story is told without the supernatural being involved, enough of it is present to allow the statement, "Julius Caesar relies too heavily on the supernatural to (advance the plot or) provide foreshadowing," to be a valid conclusion. Not necessarily bashing the book, just an observation; imagination must be used to get some of the details out of the story (which is what makes a story worth reading, details).
One criticism of some literature is that it relies too heavily on the use of the supernatural to advance the plot or provide foreshadowing. Julius Caesar is validly criticized in this way.
Neither of the examples I have provided can really be considered necessary for the preservation of the story; that is, without these excerpts, the story would be relatively the same, without much being lost.
However, Act I’s supernatural sequence is nothing but foreshadowing, as is the second example. Hardly any other methods are taken to foreshadow events. In Scene II of the first Act, a Soothsayer warns Caesar to beware the Ides of March, a soothsayer being one who can see the future.
Even Calphurnia’s account of her dreams to Caesar, horrible events taking place suggest something is wrong (Act II, Scene II), is considered to be supernatural, as it includes a lioness roaming the streets of Rome, zombies and warriors fighting with fire (as their weapons) in the sky.
The supernatural is not the only way Shakespeare conveys foreshadowing though. Act III, Scene I: Brutus shakes the hands of the conspirators, drenching his hand in his fallen comrade's (Caesar's) blood (who fell to the conspirators) beforehand, marking them all for death and later, after the conspirators left, he vows to avenge him.
Although the majority of the story is told without the supernatural being involved, enough of it is present to allow the statement, "Julius Caesar relies too heavily on the supernatural to (advance the plot or) provide foreshadowing," to be a valid conclusion. Not necessarily bashing the book, just an observation; imagination must be used to get some of the details out of the story (which is what makes a story worth reading, details).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)