Adam

Without a post-graduate degree nor any current plans to obtain one, Adam must compensate by being louder. He has a background in computer science and has worked in web technology for a number of years. He, like everyone, enjoys discussions about politics, science, religion and technology. He loves his wife, reading, video games, basketball, and Jeff Goldblum.

NSA: We can’t because we can’t

by

documents

The NSA hires a lot of smart people, and smart people tend to think they’re smarter than other people because they’re smarter than other people. So it’s not surprising that when Kevin Collier of the Daily Dot asked the NSA under the Freedom of Information Act for his “file,” he was answered that because the “adversaries” of the security of the nation would inevitably monitor any “public request” for data, and the compilation of any and all such requests could result in “grave damage” to national security, they were unable to honor his request.

Catch that?

The NSA has concocted a defensible rationale for why they can’t honor FIA requests for personal data, based upon the fact of their own existence and the existence of their surveillance programs. They are saying, in essence, “we cannot exchange information because the exchange of information alerts enemies which will use the exchange of information to do harm.” The implicit premise is that their information gathering is necessary and justified in the first place, which of course begs the question. We are forced to wonder, if the information didn’t exist, would we be in more or less danger from the enemies of national security? It amounts to a rhetorical tautology, and it’s nonsense.

These are the people we’ve put in charge of our military, our money and our future, folks. Take a good look.

Cornered by fun

by

Dorney_Park_Steel_Force_Thunderhawk

The other day Ben Kuchera wrote a really fascinating piece on Penny Arcade about free-to-play video games. He kept his focus fairly narrow but I think his thoughts inform a broader discussion ranging from ethical business practices to analysis paralysis, beyond that of just video games. Mr. Kuchera starts out by comparing free-to-play business models to amusement parks which charge per ride vs. those which charge a higher price for a single ticket but give customers unlimited rides once they’ve paid. He says “the reality is that I would probably pay less if I gave a few dollars for every ride, but then I’m stuck having to make that purchasing decision over and over.”

I was having a discussion with a coworker the other day about my strong distaste for most video games built on a free-to-play or microtransaction model, and as usual I tried to frame my opinion in logic, but I found it difficult to explain exactly why I so disliked a business model which allowed me to pay only as much as I wanted to for the enjoyment I was having. It seems to makes a lot of sense, right? Mr. Kuchera’s article was illustrative of how my negative feelings toward this business model are largely based on emotion, and how forcing people to make frequent, stress-heavy decisions about something as important as money, even if it’s just a dollar here or there, can turn an otherwise-fun experience into a decidedly un-fun spiral of indecision and doubt. While some games do free-to-play well, most do not, and they’re worse for it.