Site Update

Well, work has been keeping me busy and I've also been working on redesigning the site, so I haven't had much time for updates.

Some of the computer related posts have been moved to cypherpunk.capital-gains.net. The Capital-Gains Blog itself has been moved to blog.capital-gains.net, to make room for a more introductory index site.

I'll continue to work on the individual blog designs and post various techniques with Blogger design.

Killing me softly

I spent last Friday, playing Kill Doctor Lucky with some friends. The game concept was excellent. The typical murder mystery game, except that the murder hasn't happened yet. The objective is to (if the title didn't give it away) kill Doctor Lucky before another player does. In order to do so, no one else can witness the deed and the other players will attempt to thwart you with certain "failure cards."

I enjoyed the concept and play of the game, but the game doesn't scale well. With 3-4 players, you can expect Dr. Lucky to be pushing daisies in 45 minutes. With more players (we played with 7), expect a two hour game with some players not even having a turn for ten minutes. Two problems I saw was that everyone starts at the same place and weapons don't scale to the number of people trying to make you fail.

Naturally players will cluster in groups to prevent each other from having some necessary alone time with Dr. Lucky. With all the players starting out in a cluster, it takes some time before people can break away. I would suggest that players should be spaced apart in the beginning of larger games.

The failure card scalability problem results from of the possible number of failure cards get dealt each round, while the weapon's success rating stays constant (usually 6). If each player drew a failure card in a single round, a weapon attack in a small game, of three people, would face 2 failures. While the same round in a seven player game, the attacker would face 6 failures. Thus the larger the game, the number of failure cards that enter and remain in play escalates to the point where a game of 5 or more players has to exhaust all the failure cards before the game can be over (or in our case, I didn't play any failure card because I wanted the game to end).

Despite these issues, I think this would be an enjoyable game for 4 players.

Personal Philosphy on Free Will

Scott Adams has a lot to say about free will on the Dilber Blog. I was amazed by the response he received, as I figured this debate was put to rest centuries ago. Sure enough, now that my ears were focused on this, I heard the topic almost everywhere. Here is my personal take on free will, choices, responsibility, and destiny.

First, I agree with Scott Adams, I don't believe in free will. I believe your will is as set as your opinion of Brussels sprouts.

Choices are a bit tricky, as even though you dislike sprouts, you'll still eat them if your parents force you too. This could be concluded as a combination of several fixed wills, and your decision can be calculated from them. I see decisions as a pinball that is bounced around by random wills and cannot be exactly calculated.

I do think that a person is ultimately responsible for their decisions. If they make poor decisions, then it is up to them to rearrange the effect of wills in their pinball machine.

Lastly, I don't believe we have a destiny of any type. It may be possible one day to predict what a person may do in the next 10 seconds, but I don't believe destiny can determine the shape of an evolving pinball game 10 years from now. No one is destined to succeed or fail, we just keep playing and rework the mental game.

My interests

Life is about passion, love, and art, but not in that order.

"Give me women, wine, and snuff..." - Keats

Women: While married, we're not monogamous. Although I'm attracted to redheads, I've never dated one. Doing nothing with the right woman, is better than doing anything alone.
Wine: I prefer Burgundy, but settle for Merlot, and I celebrate good times with Champagne
Snuff: In the form of cigars or cigarettes, very infrequently. No, I'm not into slasher porn.

Who I would like to meet: Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamar, and Madame Curie. Seems like society forces women to either be victim or a bitch. It's pleasant to see female role models break these molds. As women are able to break molds, so to are men, thus these role models affect both sexes.

Movies: Spy flicks or bank robbers.
Books: Typically non-fiction and mostly technical.
Music: Female vocals or loud angry punk are what I meditate or code too, respectively.
Television: Best when off. My personal opinion is that the Muppet Show and Moonlighting were the apex of the television era.
Other interests: Computers and Vadding

I'm an explorer first and a photographer second. I like to go were people don't or aren't suppose to go. My photography allows me to share what I see in my adventures. I'm also beginning to collect art thanks to gifts from my friends. If you'd like to give me a gift, but can't think of anything, try art or pose for me. I also enjoy poetry and keep a collection of favorite poems in a small journal.

Vacation Post

I went to Cleveland, Ohio for the weekend and I need to catchup on life. So no updates until Thursday.

Life, Liberty, and Property

Seems like it's become impossible to avoid the gun issue since the recent campus shootings. The arguments on either side are, as typical, unoriginal. However, it shocks me that many pro-gun advocates are pushing their argument for arming citizens to the point where it supersedes the rights of landowners.

While I agree that more lives would have saved, if the campus allowed students and faculty to carry guns. I do not agree that this rational should be used to force gun policy on others. Bills like HB 1572 (text of the bill) would dictate the gun policy for Virginia campuses, including private universities such as Virginia Tech. These are the same tricks used by gun-control advocates to force their own agenda. What shocks me is that the gun advocates are usually the group crying foul play whenever anyone impedes their rights.

Asking the State to dictate gun policy on private property opens a door that can be used against the gun advocates. Today it's allowing guns on campuses, tomorrow the political winds change and it's prohibiting guns outside your home.

While the college's anti-gun policy may infringe your right to life, you make the choice to step onto that college. The right to bear arms is fundamentally the right to make our own choices. If we demand the right to make our own choices, we must also be willing to let other people make theirs. Asking the state to play father robs us of this right and implicitly surrenders power of the people to the state.

Guns are not the issue.

The aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings has brought gun laws back to our nation's attention. Society's opinion on political issues fall into two categories, either completely obvious or heavily divided. It's completely obvious the murder that took place was wrong. However, Both sides claim that this could have been prevented if the laws were more in their favor. On issues that are deeply debated, I always feel that the fight is over the wrong issue. In this case, guns are not the issue.

Guns don't kill people, nor do they protect. It is often stated that an armed society would be able to respond more quickly to various threats against it. Israel and Iraq are heavily armed, as armed as a military presence can be, yet they are no more safe then the rest of the world. Instead of mass shootings, they use bombs. No one brought up the debate on gun laws when Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma, because the issue was obvious.

The lack of guns doesn't remove crime either. The UK is an often cited example of a gun-less society. There, criminals have no issue using melee weapons, and there is an higher rate of "hot" burglaries. Hot burglaries is when the victim is present in the occupancy. The US sees a lower rate of hot burglaries because burglars are afraid of an armed owner. Oh, and UK still has to deal with bombs.

Gun laws will not impact crime, only the face of crime. This is the liability of having a free society where people are allowed to make their own choices. In a nation of 300 million, most people make socially acceptable choices. However, given enough time, even with the probability of 0.0001% (and it's probably less), one person will choose to hurt as many people as they can.