It’s a stunt/trick video showing some of the insane movement tactics in UT2004. The other day while checking my email I got a friendly message from the YouTube Police telling me that this video had been removed for violating copyright.

Now, as it turns out, YouTube hasn’t totally removed the video, they’ve simply muted the audio. Fine, at least they’re not totally annihilating volumes of original work just because they include something that may be copyrighted*.

*Although, the distinction must be made that these works themselves have copyright, what they don’t have is deep pockets and teams of lawyers to aggressively antagonize hundreds of millions of people.

So, anyway I went back and took a look at this so called copyright violation. Apparently the audio on this video was pulled because it contains a whole 40 seconds of the song “I Believe I Can Fly” by Space Jam. What a crock. Bitterly ironic that it gets pulled for containing only the main chorus of a song by a band who only ever made one popular song…

Update: Related Reddit thread.

Nevertheless, I came across this article on Kotaku which I thought was really silly. The main point of the article is unremarkable, it’s talking about Epic’s decision to go with EA (probably not a bad thing given what a debacle Midway has been with UT3) and their new projects in production.

The fun part is when the Kotaku interviewer chides Mike Capps for Epic’s “lack of female characters”:

As a parting shot, I asked about chicks in this new game. I hinted (flat-out said) every Epic game I’ve seen is severely devoid of badass females (except Unreal Tournament) and wanted to know if he planned to do anything about it. Apparently, I’m not the only one with this concern. Capps’s girlfriend is also very interested in the badassitute of female characters in Epic games – ditto for the EA handler’s girlfriend and double it for all the guys at People Can Fly with girlfriends.

Really, so “every Epic game” he’s seen is severely devoid of badass females?

Lets look at their past titles: Epic Pinball. Jazz Jackrabbit. Unreal (main character was by default, female). Unreal 2. Unreal Tournament. Unreal Tournament 2003. Unreal Tournament 2004. Unreal Tournament 3. Unreal Championship. Unreal Championship 2. Gears of War.

Pinball and Jazz are not exactly relevant here. And the only Unreal title that doesn’t feature “badass females” (badass of course, meaning “sexy female character who turns boys on by being into guns and killing stuff in the same way that adolescent boys are”) is Unreal 2. Even there, we can’t really know what Aida is like because she never sees combat in the game. She’s touted as a military genius, though, and her strategy won a past war — she just doesn’t like killing.

So basically, this Kotaku guy puts on his feminist waders and goes to chide Epic. “Of your past 9 futuristic paramilitary shooter games, one of them has not featured a ‘badass female.’ When are we going to see more games from you guys that feature ‘badass females.’”

How utterly stupid. Not that it’s anything special, it is pretty typical.

This was the first video to hit the interwaves:

A new one has recently come out, though similar in content. There have been some threads on social news sites following the release of these videos. One comment in particular in this Reddit thread struck me as quite interesting. User notany says: “Anonymous might be the first real Stand Alone Complex.”

Spoiler-ish description of Stand Alone Complex behind the cut.

While originally intended to “underscore the dilemmas and concerns that people would face if they relied too heavily on the new communications infrastructure,”[1] Stand Alone Complex eventually came to represent a phenomenon where unrelated, yet very similar actions of individuals create a seemingly concerted effort.

A Stand Alone Complex can be compared to the copycat behavior that often occurs after incidents such as serial murders or terrorist attacks. An incident catches the public’s attention and certain types of people “get on the bandwagon”, so to speak. It is particularly apparent when the incident appears to be the result of well-known political or religious beliefs, but it can also occur in response to intense media attention. For example, a mere fire, no matter the number of deaths, is just a garden variety tragedy. However, if the right kind of people begin to believe it was arson, caused by deliberate action, the threat increases drastically that more arsons will be committed.

What separates the Stand Alone Complex from normal copycat behavior is that the originator of the copied action is not even a real person, but merely a rumored figure that commits said action. Even without instruction or leadership a certain type of person will spring into action to imitate the rumored action and move toward the same goal even if only subconsciously. The result is an epidemic of copied behavior-with no originator. One could say that the Stand Alone Complex is mass hysteria-with purpose.

This is not unlike the concepts of memes (refer to the conversation between the major and the Puppet Master in the manga) and second-order simulacra. It also has ties to social theory, as illustrated in the work of Frederic Jameson and Masachi Osawa.

Pretty interesting to see this phenomenon play out in real life. Though, depending on the liberality of your definition, it’s debateable whether Anonymous is really the truly first Stand Alone Complex. Probably in the sense of utilizing the unique opportunities for identity malleability that the internet offers.

One thing that I’m interested in seeing is how a phenomenon like Anonymous defends itself from subversive tactics, if it can. As a distributed conscious, with no overriding control, it seems rather vulnerable to attacks that attribute other malicious activities to it.

This video found via Kotaku. I actually felt like Keighley really dominated the interview segment, but when we went to the panel all that progress was lost. Instead we got a bunch of people who have never played a videogame since Pong(!), commenting on something they know nothing about, and a news anchor pontificating on how difficult it is to be a parent and control childrens’ access to entertainment systems that costs hundreds of dollars, and games that cost half a hundred bucks each.

Funnily enough, the so-called expert called in on this Fox News segment, Cooper Lawrence, whose entire useful contribution to the segment was admitting that she didn’t know what the hell she was talking about, is experiencing a mass effect of her own as her book is flooded by poor reviews on Amazon.

Anyone else think the pictures shown with her book are a little distasteful and “objectifying” of women? I mean, “Buy Now” and “Search Inside?” That seems a little inappropriate for children.

I am absolutely loving some of the reviews she’s been getting. Unfortunately, Amazon has already closed one-star reviews and will probably start removing some of the better reviews. A bit ridiculous considering Cooper Lawrence’s own uninformed opining on national television. A couple of samples from Amazon…

5.0 out of 5 stars Wonderful
Absolutely wonderful book! It is both an incredible sexual aid but is also quite useful for cleaning up messes that my dog has created.

1.0 out of 5 stars Oh look, a misinformed review, January 23, 2008
By Farzad Mesbahi “Z” (Bethlehem, PA) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I’m just here to bash a form of entertainment I’ve never read (your book) after you bashed a form of entertainment you’ve never played (Mass Effect.)

Oh how much it sucks, doesn’t it?

1.0 out of 5 stars Ignorant, January 23, 2008
By Patricia R. Rossetti – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
If she feels that she is professionally qualified to bash a video game that she has never played, then she should have no problem with me bashing her book that I have never read.

2.0 out of 5 stars Concerned Parent, January 23, 2008
By S. Roegge – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I am Deeply appalled by this book and the availibility of it to my children.
I took my child for a nice outing last saturday to the local library and i was frightened for society as a whole when i saw this book being displayed. The sexual tones given off by just the cover of this book alone was enough for my daughter to ask “mommy why is that lady making opinions about things she knows nothing about because she has not done minimal reasearch to even understand the basics of her opinion?”
As you may guess the car ride home was very interesting.

1.0 out of 5 stars Promotes underage sex!, January 23, 2008
By Richard Nast.e (San Diego, CA United States) – See all my reviews
This book is filled with pictures of naked women and depictions of graphic sex. Worst of all, it’s marketed to children!

1.0 out of 5 stars Not Good, January 23, 2008
By T. Goldman – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
I’m sorry, but this book is just not good. It’s not well written, the author has no credibility, and she apparently has no real knowledge on any subject. Reading this book is as helpful and interesting as staring at your wall for 8 hours. The cover is creepy too.

1.0 out of 5 stars An utterly abysmal read, January 23, 2008
By Mr. J. Bain “totalbiscuit” (Leicester, UK) – See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
Be warned, for within these pages you will find one of the biggest collections of pseudo-intellectual drivel in the history of the written word. But don’t fret, if you can’t get past the truck-loads of assertions, broken logic, terrible arguments and outright overly feministic intellectual terrorism of this book, you’ll still have the front-cover to pin up on your wall. After all, good looks are all you need to be taken seriously as a psychologist these days apparently.

Turnabout and irony, so delicious… So bad, immature, and probably counterproductive but yet hilarious and devilishly satisfying nonetheless.

Update: EA steps in to demand corrections.

It’s called “Lying” and it allows Kevin McCollough – universally male no doubt – to engage in the most egregious falsehoods ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, pace, writing style, fib size of the lies they wish to “publish” and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the internet “lies” multiply in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of.

The objections to such filth should be simple to understand.

Starting with the disgusting idea that one can “create” their own versions of reality, removing facts, truth, and honest spots while enhancing – shall we say – the exaggerated features of reality’s characters tends to demonize accuracy, correctness, and proper grammar. Right? We can all agree on this?

Then there’s the dishonesty behind the lie’s title. “The “Sex-Box” Race for President” sounds like an article written by an overwrought, undereducated high school drop out that was published because the advertisements for the local bowling alley got pulled after a bunch of French anarchists attacked patrons with firearms in the parking lot. By it’s design, parents could ask for it, or turn on their childrens’ Calculation Box to go read it from the tape feed with nary a raised eye-brow. Generic, non-descriptive, and entirely mindless.

But it IS marketed for the IBM Selectric 3600, perhaps the most manually stimulating typesetting system ever made. The hardware for such allows the blending of blatant falsehoods, incompetent analysis, and the manipulation of actual truth so that an alternate reality engulfs the infantalized adults reading it without much objection.

Now if I have trouble with my son taking Kevin McCollough’s lies a little too emotionally, imagine the powerful effect that deceit adds to the mix when the figments of Kevin McCollough’s own imagination are coupled like magnets with stupid-politicians, activists, and anyone else who tests reasonable peoples’ patience by legislating, regulating, and “putting themselves into power.”

I hear my local pastor’s answer already, “Kevin needs to take his medicine.” Figures, he’s a psychiatrist.

In the race for President there has been a lot of discussion about morality and it’s impact on the lives of the individual candidate. Some pretty inane ones like Penny Arcade’s less lucid moment this past week when they posed the inquiry about Soul Edge to Jedi Master Yoda.

Yet here’s a question that deserves to be asked, and in all likelihood will not be: “How much moral judgement should the President push into legislative issues that are likely to severely damage our society’s intelligence, function, and capability?”

I hear the nay-sayers claiming I’m being the wild and crazed Truth thumper I’ve always been – but its a worthwhile question isn’t it?

If a pre-octagenarian, cetacian, Klingon, or senior citizen hears such a lie in which the videogames DO act out Kevin McColloughs most forbidden fantasies, with Barbie streetwalkers, and embody whatever libel can be imagined, what’s to stop that same person from assuming that the videogames in this “real world” shouldn’t be forced to do the same.

We now know because of the lengthy track record of serial killer after another that addictive use of self-delusion was prevalent in case after case – long before the switch got flipped and what their masturbatory imaginations had been given into, they were forcing real live human beings to tolerate their misguided lust for control.

And because of the self-published, no-accountability blogohedron age in which we live – Kevin McCollough can be customized to sodomize whatever truth, said by whoever, however he wishes.

With it’s “over the net” capabilities virtual fact-free mind-rape is just the push of a button away.

Yes there will be many snickers that I decided to bring this issue up in the Presidential cycle of 2008 but how refreshing would it be for a President to prove to the nation that his own integrity was not in question and put his pen and signature to a bill that dealt with such unsimulated misinformation excess in a way that was punitive to its creators to such a degree that they would never recover from it?

And, yes, the above paragraph was just one long run-on sentence.

As technology continues to push the limits of imagination and interaction more and more the brain, the emotions, the feelings will integrate with physical responses in reality. Soon after, Skynet will become self-aware. And while Kevin McCollough and other makers of such yellow journalism trash seem to be pushing our next generation of legislators through the gates of hell as fast as is humanly possible, it needn’t be that way.

Here’s hoping that as the next President will be forced to deal with this continual emerging reality – and enemy that has set its site to our destruction from within – that we will have elected a man of such character that he will have precision in the clarity of his response.

How would that be for a bold and uncompromising “Fact Effect?”

Some spoilers behind the cut.

Battlestar Galactica had/has a lot of problems, perhaps the most prominent of which was the third season’s weak attempt at making the show “relevant” by having the humans [for no particularly explicable reason] have their settlement occupied by the Cylons. Overall there is a lot more to it, meaning weak writing, lack of continuity, out-of-left-field revelations, and so on, but a lot of problems can be seen as stemming from the hoops the shows writers went through in order to set up situations for political commentary. Even though Battlestar Galactica definitely was the best sci-fi show in recent memory during its first season, the show lost its direction and floundered and is only a shadow of what it could’ve been.

So after watching this particular episode of Doctor Who, I am pretty confident in saying that it’s definitely one of the best sci-fi shows on right now. I’m not sure if it beats out Heroes, but it’s got much more sci-fi chops, for sure, and its mixture of camp, humor, and seriousness works out surprisingly well. Further, the storytelling is usually pretty solid — There’s a definite episodic structure, but it also develops relationships and meta-plots over the course of each season (or many seasons). There have been a couple of incidents in season 3, that I’ve noticed directly relate to events in season 1. Usually this would be reversed, but it is a show about time-travel, after all.

I never followed the original series when it was showing, but I’ve been informed that the new series actually mentains continuity with the old series. This makes it even more appealing, as we’re talking about a character with substantial history. In fact, one of the key points for the new series is how The Doctor is the last of the Time Lords. There are allusions and discussions all the time to how The Doctor was responsible for ending the war between the Dalek empire and that of the Time Lords, by means unknown. All that we know is that both of these great civilizations were destroyed and only The Doctor escaped.

I looked back to Battlestar Galactica and it’s contrived plots intended as political commentary, and then began to think about The Doctor’s history. We have this history drawn from [as far as I know] the 80′s run of the show of The Doctor being the sole survivor of the fall of two empires, and it’s hard not to see that as at least an unintentional zeitgeist-inspired reference to the cold war. And from there, we can look at The Doctor as this sort of post-Cold War hero.

With the continuation of series in its new incarnation, we can actually see some other interesting parallels. In the first season of the new series, the recurring villains are the Daleks. If we’re to continue the analogy from the previous incarnation of the series, the Daleks might be an allusion to Communism. However, I don’t think this is a particularly valid analogy at the level the Daleks function in the new series. Daleks are no longer a massive civilization engaging in a universe-ravaging Time War, but are instead stragglers, groups or individuals that managed to survive against all odds. And, although the Dalek imperative has always been to “Exterminate,” without the promise of a Dalek civilization flourishing in the vacuum of their exterminated rivals this imperative takes on a more nihilistic tone. Even though there may only be one Dalek left, he will fanatically seek out and exterminate what he sees as impure, the non-Dalek. Further, the Daleks we have seen thus far (the Emperor Dalek, the Cult of Skaro) have all had a religious dimension to their madness, something we’re led to believe is highly atypical of Daleks.

The new recurring villains introduced in season 2 are the Cybermen. As a representation of “Communism” in the new series, the Cybermen are much more fitting. Their methods, at least as shown in the new series, revolve around attempting to convert all non-Cybermen into Cybermen through a gruesome process involving brain transplantation into an artificial shell that supresses emotion and individuality. Those who resist are “deleted.” I don’t know whether the Cybermen were destroyed during the original series, but I can assume this is the case since they were introduced in the new series as from an alternate dimension. If we’re to continue the analogy, then, one may not see Cybermen as “Communism” but rather an offshoot “alternate dimension” version…

If we take these together, The Doctor actually appears to be quite the “WW4″ hero, opposing, amidst various sporadic threats, two of the more persistent, virulent and insidious ones of our time, that of fascist religious fanaticism such as Islamism, or imperialistic homogenizing meta-beliefs of Political Correctness.

If you read the comments to that post, you know how this one really brought out the real trolls of the internet. All manner of them, they came from the depths, with their warts and boils and their horrifying breath rasping out battle-cries such as, “Race and gender are social constructs!” It was frightening, and a few intrepid posters foolishly went at them with their swords sharpened. Trolls cannot be slain by conventional weapons, in fact, they only become more and more agitated by them. Trolls can only be killed by fire.

Those of us who don’t live in solipsistic darkness where external reality is only what we believe or imagine it to be can recognize that these claims are patently false. Skin color is not a good proxy for race, but races are genetically real concepts. Gender is sex. Despite the attempts by Feminists to redefine this word, Feminists have never made a serious attempt at delineating or measuring the influence of sex as opposed to gender. Gender therefore means only what Feminists decide it means as it is convenient for them at the time. Until science has made a great deal more progress, the influence of “sex” as opposed to “gender” is largely unknown and isn’t worth discussing, particularly not with those who think that their thoughts determine what is real.

Both of these are tangents, however. The real battle in the comments took place over the idea that “Rape is about power.” This is actually a shibboleth repeated by Trolls to determine whether the beings they encounter in their darkness are other Trolls, or if they are interlopers from the surface world. If it turns out the being was not another Troll, 1d3 Trolls are summoned within the next round.

“Rape is about Power” is not a verifiable claim. At best, this is a consensus, not a fact. In the world of Trolls, enough of a consensus may determine reality, but in reality it does no such thing. This sort of consensus is particularly suspect given the well-documented and overwhelming political bias of the Psychology field. As a further strike against the validity of this claim, a quick Google search revealed hundreds, possibly thousands of feminist agitprop sites using the formulation, MYTH: Rape is about sex. FACT: Rape is about power.

Even if “Rape is about Power” were true, what does that tell us? Aside from completely misleading us about when, where, why, and how rapes occur, it tells us nothing. One may as well say “Money is about Power.” Yes, and? An understanding of power relationships is already included in folk-psychological understandings of rape. Pseudo-expertise insisting that “Rape is about Power,” though, is far poorer in that it excludes the most obvious and influential factor in rape, sexual desire.

The claim is made not to illuminate our understanding of the subject to help prevent it, but instead to cast it into the Trolls’ delusion of “The Patriarchy.” According to this ideology, rape is a systematic expression of power by this mythical “Patriarchy” over women. Yet another tool in the toolbox, amongst things such as “Truth,” “Science,” “Marriage,” and so on. In reality, the claim “Rape is about Power” is about power. The entire point of this claim is not to help women or stop rape, it is to frame the unacceptable act of rape in terms that Trolls control. It is both a cavern that entices the curious into the darkness of the Trolls, and a weapon that can be used to frame those who oppose the Troll’s perception of reality as being supportive of socially and morally unacceptable behavior.

The Good and the Bad: In a lot of ways I think what Phil did was the best course of action to him. I am really in favor of public shaming for thieves, cheats, and other sorts of scumbags. On the other hand, Phil decided to post up Amanda’s email address and home phone number with his Digg.com post. The email address isn’t a big deal, but the phone number is. My attitude is basically, the Internet is Vegas: “What happens in Internet stays in Internet.” Taking things from the Internet to real life without mutual agreement is about as close as it comes to a cardinal sin of internet etiquette.

So a few days ago I saw this post: Warning! Felony for submitting a Digg story. As it turns out, the guy has apparently been charged with violating some podunk law in Michigan. A followup story was posted today on the website of some sensationalist local TV station: Man faces cyber-bullying felonies. You can’t make this stuff up.

Amanda Brunzell, 23, said she is living in fear because of the actions of a man.

It is not his threats that got him in trouble, but the fact that he got others to do the harassing and the high-tech way he accomplished it.

It is a case that shows the power of the Internet and tests the waters of a relatively new law.

The former roommate Phillip Hullquist, who lived with Brunzell while she was working in Texas, claimed she stole his video camera.

It was not until after Brunzell moved back to Michigan that the former roommate, named Phillip, claimed she stole the camcorder.

He was so upset he put a video on YouTube and a post on another site, inciting supporters to get his camera back. The response was massive cyber-bullying.

The man now faces two felonies and Brunzell is afraid to sleep. The World Wide Web has become her personal prison.

Hullquist splashed his claims online and riled up Digg.com users to get his camera back. He gave out Brunzell’s home phone number and e-mail addresses.

She has received dozens of chat requests and hundreds of e-mails, some threatening her life.

Kentwood Chief of Police Richard Mattice and his detectives are investigating the case.

The World Wide Web has become her personal prison. Boo-Hoo! She got instant messaged by a few of the trolls over at Digg and then immediately a plan hatched in her head: Instead of instantly blocking them, and preventing further messages by blocking unknown users and sending mail from unknown people into her spambox, she’d decide to wreak vengeance on this guy, trying to ruin his life by going to the police and playing up the victimized woman angle. Even more absurdly, the Michigan police seem to be playing along with her, having charged the original poster with two felonies for merely posting the woman’s phone number and email address.

Let’s be clear, Phil was in clear violation of Article 1, Section 1 of the Internet Conventions Convention of .COM, but this manipulative hag took things beyond the next level by turning a simple situation of internet asshattery into a legal one that could lead to jail time for the guy. Michigan, too, is to blame, for having on books a completely asinine and unenforceable law which basically states, “If you do anything online that causes someone else to possibly behave in a way that could be construed as harassing, you can be held responsible for their actions.”

The thing that worries me with this whole story is the possibility that Amanda might win. I have very little interest in this spat, but I see a victory for Amanda in this case as a blow against the heart of the Internet. There is no way the Internet could exist if every thin-skinned, vengeful harridan could bring lawyers around and sue anyone who might be responsible when some internet troll makes a death threat. Grow a pair and realize that the rhetorical style of the whole damn Internet is inflated to extremes. Telling someone to go die is a casual hello. If one person can be held responsible for the actions of other people, why stop with Phil? Why not sue Kevin Rose and the rest of the people behind Digg for publishing Phil’s story with Amanda’s contact information? Heck, why not sue AOL for delivering the harassing messages to her, and every company running a wire between her and Phil? Go for the big fish, Amanda, Phil is small fries.

It’s not like Phil is some Charles Manson authoritarian pseudo-cult leader personality manipulating a bunch of drugged up women. Digg users may be drugged up, but the ones who were stupid enough to go about harassing Amanda were acting under their own free will. In the past I’ve had to deal with imbeciles who aren’t capable of making this sort of distinction, that Person A isn’t Person B and doesn’t send out mind control rays to Person B … Unfortunately, the lawmakers in Michigan seem to be the same sort of dolts.

In conclusion, both of these nitwits need to have their internet privileges permanently revoked. Amanda needs to die, and the state of Michigan needs to fall off the face of the earth.

All I can say is that I’m glad my kid isn’t attending this school. If he were, I’d be compelled to schedule a meeting with the Principal’s skull and a blunt object.

I can’t say I’m too surprised to find out that the Principal of this school is a woman. This sort of reductio ad absurdum policy is straight out of feminist modalities: Touching can be both good and bad, but using rationality and observation of reality to determine which is which is insufficient. Since we can never truly know whether a touch was good or bad, we must ban them all. This is not to say that a male principal couldn’t be just a empty-headed and nannyish so as to want a ridiculous policy like this, but I’d like to think that a man who’s so craven so as to think this would be a good idea would also be too spineless to actually try and implement such a policy.

This story found via Reddit. Although the Reddit comments are usually a cesspool of anti-Bush, anti-Religion, and whatever other banalities I can’t be bothered to dredge up in my memory right now, there are a few interesting tidbits here. Check out these comments:

Actually I attended Fairfax County schools (where Kilmer is located) and distinctly remember getting in trouble for sneezing during a school assembly in the 5th grade. I wish I were joking…

Oh yeah, I know exactly what you mean. In Northley Middle School, outside of Philadelphia, a kid would receive detention for sneezing during class presentations.

I distinctly recall learning that year how to suppress a sneeze.

It’s things like this that make me consider that the human mind is the enemy of reason.