bf2 patch 1.5 thoughts
Well those were a few frustrating rounds. Of course I'm talking about Battlefield 2, and its new v1.50 patch that came out today.
I hate the new "prone deviation." Perhaps it's more realistic now - it makes your crosshairs less accurate immediately when you flop to the ground - but it breaks the way I play. It's like needing to learn how to engage in combat all over again, and I'm too old for that nonsense. Ordinarily, if someone's shooting at me, I want to hit the deck and use the added stability of the ground to make my shots that much more accurate. I was quick at it, and pretty good. But now...
I fall to the ground and see my bullets flying awkwardly around, no where near my intended target. So I'm now forced to either just crouch to a knee, which leaves me as a larger target, or hope that I'm already on the ground when someone walks up to me, which encourages camping. Ergo, I usually die.
As for the runway grieving fix, I only tried to force one time, with much success. I'm not sure if it's fixed or not, but apparently it's not perfect (go figure).
The widescreen support has a limited number of resolutions. I'm not sure if I'm going to keep playing on 1920x1280, since it's so taxing on my system, but it's the only one that seems to truly fit my aspect ratio.
For what it's worth, I didn't crash in the hour or so that I played, and there were several opportunities for me to do so. That's always a good sign.
My experiences with the jets, anti-aircraft, and Blackhawks were limited. They don't appear to be drastically different though.
Top it all off with the fact that my mouse sensitivity is all over the place because of the screwed up Setpoint software from Logitech and you've got the makings for a traditionally upsetting Battlefield experience. And that's something we've all been missing.
time to tweet
twit (noun, 1528)
- a silly annoying person; fool
I know there's some reason I can't stand Twitter, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's the White House trying to get me to read their "tweets," or the news channels thinking they're hip and popular because of all their little followers, or it could be that I have no interest whatsoever in where you're going right now. Maybe it's the quality of the users, or the quality of the content, or both.
So I went ahead and searched for reasons to hate Twitter, because positive reinforcement, even of negative feelings, is always good. I found this, which is just some guy talking about why he hates Twitter, but it's reasonable enough. He hates it because it's too popular, and everyone talks about it, and it's a waste of time, and it has its own lexicon of frustratingly inane terms.
Maybe if I had a Twitter account, my life would be more complete. As it stands, I'm forced to get by with only the occasional Facebook status update. Hopefully the Twitter enthusiasm will die down enough that I can go a day or two without having to hear about it, and then one day it will be overtaken by a new Internet fad that will surely be equally deplorable - but at least new.
Oh yeah, I forgot: Ashton Kutcher. That's probably a large part of it.
terrible political generalities
Here's a potentially incredibly offensive observation I've made: one's political inclinations are directly related to his levels of wealth and intelligence, but those two factors must be examined concurrently. This is not an examination of the relationship between intelligence and wealth, although the two may be associated. Rather, this suggests that those who are poor and stupid have different political views than those who are poor and smart, and those who are rich and stupid are different than those who are rich and smart. Let's examine further, but first, here's a graph for clarification (click to enlarge):
As we see, if you lack wealth and intelligence, you're more likely to support Republican views. For an example supporting this, see Kelsy's letter here. Conversely, those lacking wealth but with higher levels of intelligence (or at least education) tend to support Democratic ideals. This is exemplified by the overwhelming college student support for Barack Obama, although college students aren't necessarily as bright as they once were. Of course, those lacking intelligence make up the bulk of support for both parties.
On the other end of things, we see that if you're very rich but very stupid, you tend to be more liberal, as witnessed by Sean Penn and Orlando Bloom (oh how I loathe him). However, if you are rich and intelligent, you are more likely to support Republicans. No better proof of this is seen than in Donald Trump's support for John McCain, or, better yet, the Chuck Norris and his unabashed conservatism.
I won't attempt to explain why these trends occur; that's for you to decide. But most people fall somewhere in the middle, where it's a toss-up between either party. And there's also the Green Party thrown in there just to screw everything up a little bit.
excuse not to carol
The guy who wrote "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town" must not have thought too carefully about the lyrics. Here's a taste:
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness' sake!
Ignoring the obviously creepy and vaguely pedophilic overtones, there's a serious error in logic here. Skipping to the end, we see that the writer/singer/commandant has ordered us to "be good" purely for the sake of goodness, i.e. we should need no motivation to be good other than the pure satisfaction of knowing that we are, indeed, good. (This sentence does not begin with a gerund.) Going back to the beginning, we see that he is describing specific reasons to be good, i.e. Santa Claus is closely monitoring our actions and determining whether or not we deserve presents.
All I'm saying is, don't build up an argument and then drive home your final and over-arching demand with the introduction of an unrelated (or inaccurate) inclusion. And habanero salsa labeled "hot" is actually hot, despite your assumptions.
(Note: I wasn't going to say anything, but it would seem that the general population still doesn't fully understand and needs to be reminded of this everywhere they look: you're is a contraction of "you" and "are," whereas your is possessive. Their they're not interchangeable. For instance, "if you simply use your brain, you're going to write this correctly every time." Morons.)
thoughts and reflections
Today on "How It's Made": giant metal vats, assembly lines, babies, and paper cups.
Just kidding. But more importantly, who would name his or her child "Jon Kyl"? Why take two perfectly reasonable first names, drop one letter from each, and then combine them to make such a pretentious title?
I'm a bit scatterbrained as I have recently undergone strenuous testing over nearly every anatomical feature of the human head and neck (who would've thought there could be so much contained in such a small space?). However, the examination marked the end of my experience with human corpses, which I'll consider a good thing. It was a great learning experience, but I won't miss it (or the smell) too much.
Next on the agenda: more class, then more studying, followed by more video games. "Working for the weekend" should probably be frowned upon, but should "learning for the weekend" be equally discouraged? Every approaching break looks more and more appetizing...
But isn't life beautiful?
going 19% of the speed limit
I'm not sure how it's possible, but today I spent an hour and a half driving 17.8 miles. There was no construction, and no wreck immediately involved, and yet...cars refused to move. I suppose it's one of the many things you become numb to when you've lived in a big city for a while, but for the uninitiated it can be truly maddening. What's more, the final portion of the trip - 5.4 miles - took nearly 50 minutes to traverse. It was easily the worst part...I could've gotten out of the car and run the remaining distance with time to spare.
I was trying to make it to a soccer game; it's a physically painful experience to miss minute after minute of playing time while surrounded by stagnant traffic. But the truly fantastic part is that I got there literally just in time to see my teammates leaving - defeated by five goals. I don't think the trip would have been nearly as epic if I had made it five minutes earlier (in time to see the very end of the game), or if I had come five minutes later (when everyone had left).
I simply cannot understand how, even though there are so many cars, we couldn't move forward at a quicker pace. I remember wishing at the time that I could see a satellite view of the traffic flow...what were they doing? Were those in the lead vehicles getting out to play croquet in the street? I doubt this problem existed when horse carriages were gallivanting around.
I don't think I'll be leaving an hour and a half before my next game, but I will know not to go the same route. I may even splurge and pay to take the toll road, if only to save a tiny bit of sanity.
#1 in the ratings
I think if I had any sort of news show on TV, be it political, sports-related, or otherwise, I would start a revolution in the industry. Before each commercial break, I would end by wrapping up what I was currently talking about. This simple change would be vastly different from the now commonplace practice of devoting 45 seconds pre-commercial to introducing what is "coming up after the break." Oddly enough, this would give me an extra 45 seconds to actually talk about something, rather than just spew out something meaningless that will be expounded upon when the viewer returns.
My other radical departure from the norm would involve my reporters. Instead of carefully crafted dialogues in which the reporter knew exactly what the anchorman would be asking, they would actually have a real conversation. The anchor, therefore, would need to truly pay attention to what the reporter was saying and be able to formulate questions spontaneously. The reporter, in turn, must know something about the subject so that he might enlighten both the anchor and the viewer. And he would end his report in truly radical fashion; instead of a dry closing consisting of name and location stated with standardized inflection, he or she would finish by saying, "doesn't that beat all?" or an equally witty quip. Oh, and I wouldn't make the anchorman do anything pointless while the camera pans away before the commercial, like typing on a laptop or jotting notes on a legal pad. I'd just stop filming.
Allow me to close by saying, "Who'd have thunk it?"
our chance to see cars driving
I haven't been able to find much to complain about NASCAR, or car racing in general, in the past, but I finally came up with something. Sure it's a beautiful form of entertainment, what with the cars whizzing around a track hundreds of times, sometimes passing each other, sometimes following each other. Sure the drivers and their crews are stellar athletes, capable of outwitting even the shrewdest mind and overpowering even the brawniest arm. But one thing vexes me about this sport of kings: it's using all my gasoline.
Petroleum, if you will. Fuel. A vehicular sustenance by any other name would smell, and taste, as sweet. NASCAR vehicles roll along at a reasonable 4 to 6 miles per gallon, so I can't really complain about their efficiency. It's simply quantity that's frustrating. If the loyal fanbase in the U.S. alone would allow the racing circuit to die down a little, thousands of gallons of oil could be saved, not to mention the deleterious ecological impacts of a race (ha, global warming!).
It would be a difficult undertaking, but letting go of NASCAR would inevitably lower gas prices, lower carbon emissions, save the ozone, cause ocean level recession, stabilize the economy, and reduce road rage. And it would open up Sunday afternoon television spots for actual quality programming.
Or we could just keep watching cars drive in a circle really, really fast. Yeah, let's do that.
worldwide leader in sports
As many could have guessed, Valdosta, GA is Titletown USA. I'll let that sink in.
...
Who cares? While I find it somewhat preposterous that a real city like Boston or New York isn't considered "Titletown," the very concept of ESPN's promotion irks me far more. Fortunately, SportsCenter will no longer be interrupted with these pointless incursions, and if the title had to go somewhere, at least it went to a place with a successful high school. For whatever it's worth (I'll give you a hint...it's worth nothing).
Also of note on ESPN this week: more about Brett Favre. Who he's calling, what he's thinking, and when he defecates (as well as the quantity, and quality, of defecation produced). Splice that in with some NFL Live and you've got yourself a top-notch programming block. Remind me to watch again when the next FIFA World Cup of beach soccer rolls around.
some of them are just jerks
Some things can't be taught. Other things should be taught, but never are. One must seriously consider the mindset of those who so callously brush aside justice, fairness, and/or respect for others.
For one example, take the movie theatre. What would someone actually need to feel in order to conduct an entire phone conversation during the movie, with others sitting nearby giving exasperated sighs and frustrated glances? This seems far too common an occurrence; certainly no one is teaching these people that such an action is justified or correct. They simply fear no reprisal and must truly not care how they affect others.
Another example would be the ill-tempered, foul-eager soccer player. Sportsmanship is an admirable quality and should be encouraged in any game, but those who lack it are not subjected to any serious punishment at the casual level. If the player is not a professional with a multi-million dollar contract, he or she must not feel under the obligation to treat others equitably and respectfully. Those who put themselves in such positions speak to their upbringing far more adequately than could any background check.
Perhaps the best message is one for parents, that they should not consider their work complete if their children are going so haphazardly through life with concern to others. In the parents' shortcomings, they're making it ever more difficult for those who have such values to treat their careless children with respect.
Well, animals are a lot like people, Mrs. Simpson. Some of them act badly because they've had a hard life, or have been mistreated...but, like people, some of them are just jerks.