So I downloaded the WoW patch to 1.8.4.

I know I've had some problems with free harddrive space lately, but I didn't know it was THIS bad. The patch needs 1GB to unpack and patch and then deflate again. Weeeeell, I only had 800MB free... and, in my book, freespace under 1GB is not good. Not good at all.

I remembered my WoW screenshots folder was rather large, last time I looked at it. So I decided to take a peek at it today. I have 405 screenshots saved in TGA format totaling, oh... let's just put it at 3GB. Erm... yeah. Needless to say, I decided to use the AMAZING IrfanView program to batch convert them aaaall to JPeg! (Yes! JPeg! PNG eww! Haha!) 3GB to 100MB with low loss.

Happy? You betcha.

http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

I was going to look it up myself, but had trouble finding the right Article in the Constitution... so I searched Google for "seperation of church and state" and, naturally, found a trove of liberal "oh noes, religion!" groups. But then I found a shining light in the darkness.

I thought there was a real Article actually saying something about seperation. But, you know what? That phrase isn't even in a governing document. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church to calm their fears about a government instituted religion. Not religion instituted government. They have it all so completely backwards.

What are they actually using from the Constitution? The first amendment... which says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Hey, wow, will ya look at that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Banning prayer in schools for being "unconstitutional" is unconstitutional. Banning using the name "Jesus Christ" in the General Assembly for being "unconstitutional" is unconstitutional.

People take and either knowingly misinterpret and play ignorance to the Constitution, or are just... well... misinformed, to be polite. Read it, people. Know what it says.

Please read the article I linked to... and read the US Constitution in it's entirety.

I though this merited a post all to it's own...

It was just announced today that Indiana has passed a bill to effectively prevent anyone from mentioning "Jesus Christ" in the General Assembly. Lots of people are incredibly, unspeakably upset.

Didn't we found the United States to escape the old English government from controlling our religion? You realize that the article in the Constitution that "seperates church from state" was designed to keep that from happening... not to keep religion from influencing the government. I think people know that, but they don't want that, so they're not going to see it that way.

How can you possibly ban people from saying something and still keep in line with "Freedom of Speech"? Which, I might not have to remind you, people are always quoting and don't want infringed upon at all, period, and if they THINK you're trying to censor them, they go ecstatic. So why can't Christians plead that and be heard?

You won't hear a bill be passed to keep people from talking about Allah in government meetings, I'll bet my bottom dollar. It's interesting how all these other religions are flourishing under the governments of the planet, but Christianity is the sole religion that's still persecuted to this day, in the era of "tolerance".

Coincidence? Nah... People are afraid of what Christianity means. That there's a higher power who controls anything and everything and that humans can't earn their right to get to Heaven, and that, one day, they're going to have to answer to Him. They want to be in control of their own life... they don't WANT someone in authority over them.

So there you go.

Here are a few interesting news clips I came across today. One is how much information XBox Live transmits to the entire planet. While I don't think it's nearly as horrible as the article suggests, it's still somewhat unsettling what does get sent online when you're not even technically online. They say you can specify to be labeled at offline, even when online, so as to hide this stuff... but then people won't know when you're online at all, now, will they.

Next is someone suing Microsoft over the crashing XBox 360. While I agree that Microsoft was a bit, shall we say... stupid... to release the 360 in such a state, I think it's equally as dumb to take them to court over it. From what I've heard in rebuttal, it's really only a few consoles that are locking up to overheating. I've heard fans and Microsoft saying there's many more working consoles than not-working consoles, and I believe them. Consumers can be such a batch of morons when they group together to get something equally moronic done... while they could just be a nice bunch of gamers and fix the overheating problem temporarily (link, link), while Microsoft churns out the replacements.

Next up is my personal favorite, because it shows that the planet is just now starting to wise up to the fact that the XBox 360 is NOT a "next-generation" console. From the article: "...not every game feels all that next-generation to us. Sure, there are the titles that truly show off the capabilities of the 360 -- Project Gotham Racing 3 or Perfect Dark Zero, especially." In my opinion, even having games that take full advantage of everything the console has to offer does NOT make it "next-generation". The Nintendo Revolution? That's "next-generation", and quite possibly even third and fourth generation to boot! So far, every generation of consoles has added something new and exciting to the way things were played.

You've got the Atari/Pong generation. Very much arcade style, with controllers with wheels or joysticks and maybe one button. Games with negligible story, if at all. Space Invaders and Asteroids rocks, though.

You've got the NES generation. I'm not sure if Sega made their debut here or not. (I don't think they did... anything I can find puts their initial release between the NES and the SNES, making it "next-gen" to the NES.) Nintendo blew away the competition with the NES, from what I can gather. Arranging a quality control system (while not at all wise these days, revived electronic gaming into what we know it as today) to keep the bad, low-quality games out. Mainstream removeable cartridges. Two controllers with a Directional Pad (D-Pad) an A and B button (which are still used today by, well... everyone) and, of course, Start and Select.

Now you've got the SNES generation. Sega created the "Genesis/Megadrive" in this era. Four more buttons for the SNES controller! X, Y, and then two triggers on the top of the controller, L and R. The Genesis had... well... thousands of buttons. I'm not aware of any other consoles here, so I'll move on. That fact is that, so far, every new console that was released was different and obviously more powerful. But the key? "Different!"

Enter Sony. After a dispute between Nintendo and Sony about building the Nintendo 64 with a CD-drive, Sony went on to become Nintendo's most competitive...competitor. Sega also had released the "Saturn", but it didn't do very well at all. (Probably due to the insane amount of pure media hype surrounding the Playstation. But I digress.) The difference this generation? Joysticks. More buttons, too. 64-bit power. True 3D movement through games. Nintendo stuck with cartridges, because they were being stubborn, but still managed to make what was, in my opinion, one of the best consoles ever. (The best rests with the SNES, but could easily switch places with the new Revolution, once I get my hands on it!)

Enter Microsoft. Seeing the potential wealth and dominance factor in the gaming industry, Microsoft slapped together a bulky consoles for the sole purpose of getting a foothold. Nothing more, nothing less. Not incredibly successful, but successful nonetheless, even though they lost money on every single console sale. Sony and Nintendo and Sega also released the "Playstation 2" (ingenious title), the "Gamecube", and the "Dreamcast", which ultimately spelled the end of Sega as a console developer. The difference this generation? Two joysticks on each console's controller by default. Microsoft and Sony added internet-access to their consoles to open up more multiplayer options. Nintendo (wisely, in my opinion) elected not to join the internet craze and waited to introduce it (better than anyone else, in my opinion) with the Nintendo DS and Revolution. Gamecube also started using a sort of proprietary mini-DVDs for their games. Amazingly smooth looking 3D graphics (compared to the last generation) graced all the consoles. (Except maybe for the Dreamcast, but *ahem*.)

Today, a new generation is rapidly approaching... or, at least, it should have been. What's different about the XBox 360? Nothing. Same controller, same console. Just "stronger". What's different about the Playstation 3? (ingenious title) Nothing. Same controller, same console. Just "stronger". What's different about the Revolution? Well... I think you know the answer to that. After years of the industry beating Nintendo the death for being "behind the times", they're the only ones who are truely developing a next-generation console here. I'm going to buy one. Even if it fails. (Which I seriously doubt.) Give them some credit folks, even if they're "behind the times" with HD technology. They're far ahead of the competition when it comes to new, exciting features. I must say the lack of HD on the Revolution affects me not at all. I don't wish to spend my family's yearly income on an HD TV.

Of course, the PS3 has the potential to bring out something different between now and release. (Microsoft wanted to beat everyone and released theirs way too early, in my opinion... and now they're paying for it now and will be in the long run.) But I, personally, doubt that Sony will come close to the revolutionary design of what Nintendo has to offer.

As for my final article to post, which ties in with the HD phenomenon, concerns itself with the size of future XBox 360 games. Size as in... disc count. Four DVDs... for one title. Why? HD textures and lack of the new DVD media. HD textures are GIGANTIC. Way more than textures you'd need for regular resolution of TVs. That makes games big. The article says that it's an as-of-yet unmentioned XBox title, and that Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion comes to mind. But, well... that's been mentioned... several times, in fact. So it's not that, I'm afraid. (Well, no, I'm not afraid... I'm going to get it for PC, and I don't want to install 16GB of data for one single game, I'm sorry!)

Anyway, I hope that gives you something to chew about for a while!

In news unrelated to games, The Chronicles of Narnia is released in theaters this week! Go see it. Even if it's bad. Not only will they maybe actually finish the book series this time around, but seeing another successful fantasy feature film besides Lord of the Rings might further shake the movie industry into making more GOOD fantasy films. I love fantasy. Want moooooore!

...and now I shall go back to waiting for the World of Warcraft server maintenence to complete. 3 more scheduled hours to go. Lalala...