Will everyone once again repeat after me: It's a sign of weakness when the only way to make yourself look good is to make your competition look bad...

Got it, yet? This applies to Democrats, Apple Computer, soap companies, cell phone services, and everyone else. Why don't you try making yourself good by doing just that? It's laughably pathetic when you can't convince people you're the best by just minding your own business. Don't compare yourself to your competition... let the customers do that for themselves! They'll make the best decision for themselves, don't you worry, and you'll make yourselves look less like an idiot in the meantime!

CNET is reporting on a virus that magically appeared on a small number of Video iPods manufactured after September 12, 2006. Good ol' Slashdot was quick to pick of a comment made on Apple's support page for the mistake:

As you might imagine, we are upset at Windows for not being more hardy against such viruses, and even more upset with ourselves for not catching it.

Apple, ever the elitist, just had to subtley attack Microsoft here, didn't they. It's just impossible for them NOT to attack the leader of the market. Everyone, repeat after me: "It's a sign of weakness when the only way to make yourself look good is to make your competition look bad." (Even when it makes you look like a total loser.) You know why Windows is so susceptible to virus attacks? Well, let me see, one of the reasons could be poor coding, but why is there poor coding? There's that whole backwards compatibility thing Microsoft has to do to keep everyone happy, because, believe it or not, not all people like to just up and forget all the applications they purchased when they get a new operating system. Windows is messy because it's built upon old code and is designed to work on an infinte amount of computer system configurations. It's a mammoth conglomeration of code that nobody knows how it works anymore, but it got that way so Windows XP could still run DOS applications. Also, there's that whole 90% marketshare that Windows has. It's in more places than your pretty little OS X. So of course virus attacks are going to be higher, just because of the simple fact that there's more Windows system TO ATTACK owned by people who don't know how to use a computer.

...and then there's Apple Macintosh OS X. That thing that's illegal to install on any non-certified Apple computer system, and is therefore only designed to work on one particular assembly chain of computer systems. Which, I might add, is very expensive, no matter what those fanboys say. Sure, there's the Mac Mini, but, uhm... you just get some dinky little cube without any peripherals or even a decent videocard. (But I guess you don't need one, since OS X doesn't play games, hahaha.)

Anyway, Apple just screwed up and took the opportunity to make fun of Windows. They actually managed to somehow package a computer virus on their iPods that were then wrapped, boxed and sold to unsuspecting buyers. How DOES that happen? But anyway... no apology. Just a poke at Windows and a "you should've had an anti-virus program installed". Wow. Due to the nature of the virus, they say to be sure to scan your computer, and any removeable media you have, which includes external harddrives, digital cameras, USB memory sticks and anything else.

No wonder most Apple users are the way they are. The company itself is the same way.

Bottom line: Apple ships some iPods with a virus and makes fun of Windows for being susceptible. Let's forget the fact that they shipped a product with a virus and make fun of Windows. After all, it's Apple, so it must be okay.

So... I've been thinking. When we first returned to my old church, they were going through some growing pains in regards to what kind of music people wanted during the service. You know the age old fight... do we allow new funky contemporary music or do we stick with old-style hymns and stuff.

I think the whole fight rather disappointed our preacher, and he preached once really blatantly about the subject... about how we shouldn't be fighting over something that isn't essential to salvation. No where in the Bible does it discuss proper music or anything of the sort. I'll admit to that. Since then, he's always brought it up a bit more subtley in his sermons. (I wonder if anyone picks up on it.) Since then, I, personally, have become less aggressive when it comes to music styles. Sure, I can't stand the boring, brainless, three-word, three-minute songs they sing sometimes, but I take it in stride.

However... there's always the subliminal issue of "reverence". WHY do people fight for new, contemporary music? I notice that most (but not all) newer songs seem to talk about you, the singer, and what you're doing for God. "I pledge to do this", and "I'm going to do that", and "I'm giving you this", and "I need to do that". So why do we sing songs in church?

Well, it's "worship", right? That's what most churches call singing time. The way I see it... most contemporary songs aren't talking about God's glory and grace and power, they're talking about how awesome "we" are and what "we've" been doing. It's easy for me to see the words to songs, since our church has a projector. You should try analyzing the words to songs sometime. I'm not saying ALL newer songs are this way, and I've seen some older hymns the same way... but I've just noticed that MOST newer songs are like this.

I'm all for jazzing things up a bit. Personally, the old hymns put me to sleep and I'm not awake during the sermon and I HATE that. I've just never been able to do that. Our church has an early service that still plays strictly old songs by one piano, and it's a real drag. I just can't do it. However, for the later services, you've got the complete other side of the spectrum where it can become just crazy songs. Not nearly as bad as just about every other church I've visited, as I have to keep reminding myself, but it's still a bit out there sometimes.

What I have a problem with are the songs that repeat the same words and/or the same notes over and over again. It's brainless and boring and it hurts to listen to. Anyone can bonk out some tune on a piano, write the words "You are holy" and just repeat it enough times to make it as long as a hymn. Which actually brings me to another point of newer songs.

The lyrics are so completely vague. They always talk about "you" and "him". They barely ever say "God" or "Jesus". The songs could be applied to ANYONE. Sure, we know who we're singing it to, but that doesn't make the song special or dedicated to Him. Try picturing if you can sing a "worship song" to, say... your wife. If it's just some silly love song that can be applied to anyone, then I don't think it belongs in the church. It is, quite literally, a "worship song". The song is worshipping, yes, but it could be worshipping anything you're singing it to. It's nothing special. I don't think those belong in the church.

I can't remember if I ever told you about the song they sang once... it sounded... uhm... like some pop song you'd sing during a "James Bond bed scene". It was so embarrasingly vague and just... steamy sounding. I refused to even sing it in my head. No way I'm singing something that could be in some porn video. I can't remember all the lyrics, but it was talking about breathing and warmth and touching and being close to each other, and... uhm, yeah... I'm not that kind of guy. The icing on the cake was that it never mentioned any names, so it could be sung to anyone and anything. Not... good... But thank God we haven't sung that more than twice and not for a while.

Another thing that comes up when I think of people fighting over music... WHY are you fighting? I guess I kind of got distracted from my "reverence" point. But here we go! I mean, are you arguing over the music because you feel it's not reverent, or because it's not the music YOU like? I'm kind of torn on this, because, naturally, people have songs that THEY like. It's just a natural thing. But are you wanting to sing songs because YOU want to hear it, or because you want to praise God with it? To me, it almost seems as if there's a fine line between enjoying the praising and just plain enjoying the song. I mean, I have favorite contemporary songs that I listen to sometimes. But I admit it's for my listening pleasure.

So, when people don't want to sing a certain song, or want to play a certain kind of music, are they worried that the song isn't properly praising God? Or are they upset that someone doesn't like listening to their favorite song. I'm okay with contemporary songs, myself. As long as it's not too wild. I mean, please... crazy drum solos and heavy beats and stuff, that's usually only for personal enjoyment. You can SAY that it's for God's glory, but is it REALLY? I'm biased here, I admit, because I've heard some scary stuff about the origination of rock music, and how drums beats are anti-harmonious and rather dangerous. For crying out loud, witchdoctors use drums to summon spirts. Specially designed beats and rhythms that witchdoctors turned Christian will pick out in "modern music". That, to me, is really freaky. But that's something else entirely that I'm not quite prepared to talk about. I'm a bit rusty on sources for that.

So, I guess... that problem I see in music isn't necessarily the music (well, unless it gets too wild), but the fact that people seem to get upset because THEY aren't getting what THEY want. I think we need to watch out for that more than anything else. I think a lot of the in-fighting will stop if we concentrate on worrying about singing songs that are specifically reverent to GOD and GOD alone, songs that aren't so vague that they can be sung to your significant other, and songs that aren't outlining everything YOU'VE done for God, instead of what HE'S done for YOU. Come on, it's a time to worship GOD, not yourself! This is basically what I've always had a problem with.

So... it's late... and I started losing my focus, but I hope you've got the point.

Okami... best game I've ever played. It's original, artistic, innovative, enthralling, addicting... not to mention, very long and very cool... everything you want in a game! (Well, you'd probably run into some penny-pinching psychiatrists who like to tell you game addiction is a disease, but I abstain.) It was made by Clover Studio, a Japanese subsidiary of Capcom, for the PlayStation 2. This, you probably already know, but I'm giving some essential background.

An awesome company. A lot like Cyanworlds, maybe. They focus on new and better ways to make games that aren't some rehash of something you've seen thirteen times before. Something that people would like to see stick around and pump out even more awesome stuff, right? Wrong! Capcom announced today that they are in the process of dissolving Clover Studio. (Here's the Kotaku article.) Why? Here's a quote from the official english press release:

Clover Studio Co., Ltd. has met the goal of developing unique and creative original home video game software, however, in view of promoting a business strategy that concentrates management resources on a selected business to enhance the efficiency of the development power of the entire Capcom group, the dissolution of Clover Studio Co., Ltd. has been raised and passed at a Board of Directors' meeting.

So, basically, Clover did everything they were built for! They successfully developed unique and creative games that, as far as I know, people are just going crazy over. However, Capcom decided to disband them to promote a business strategy that focuses resources on "enhancing the efficiency of the development power" of the rest of Capcom. What does this mean? They want to churn things out faster. How do you think they're going to do that? They're going to pump out sequels. You're going to see Resident Evil 52, Megaman 326, and Devil May Cry 21. Things that "sell well"... Things that don't take much brain power to make... Things that are a sure bet and not "dangerous" for the company.

As Nintendo said during E3 2006, the video game industry is lined with the wreckage of companies who didn't change and adapt... companies who were too afraid to try something new. They stuck with what they knew and they died. Companies like Nintendo and Clover Studio and Cyanworlds... they like to push the boundaries of new and exciting things that've never been done before. And you know what? They ARE successful. People love new things. Of course, there's always the chance that your product will flop and your company may die, but the company will die anyway. But just don't make bad products! Listen to what the people want and you'll be successful.

Unfortunately, companies like Sony and Microsoft and Electronic Arts and Capcom and Ubisoft just can't quite see that. The irony is that they're the gargantuan mammoth corporations who can AFFORD to make mistakes, but they have so much money, they just want to keep making more and more and more in the easiest way possible. I can't believe how these guys are so blatantly ignoring games like Uru Live and Okami and are tossing the creative companies aside to rot. Not only are they killing these companies and hindering creativity, but they're slowly and surely killing themselves with ever overdone games like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid and Rainbow Six.

On the bright side, there's a rumor flying around (as reported on by Wired) that the reason Capcom is dissolving Clover Studio is because Clover wanted to break away from Capcom, and Capcom was just making it official. If this is true, then that would make Clover an independent developer who wouldn't be tied to a single publisher and/or platform. If this is true, and they're able to find someone to snatch them up, we could be seeing more of their games on multiple platforms, which is better for us and better for them. Just think... it would be possible to see Okami on the Nintendo Wii after all! Using the Celestial Brush with the Wii Remote would be heavenly. Granted it is a long shot, but just the possibility that Clover will surive is enough to make Capcom's stupidity less heartbreaking.

We shall see... Clover will be officially separated from Capcom by the end of March 2007.

read more | digg story

Incredible.

You know, I keep saying that one of Sony's quotes keeps "taking the cake", but, once again, I think this is the ultimate in Sony Says. You see, Sony says that the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii are too expensive. (According to Joystiq reporting on an interview with Michael Ephraim, Managing Director of Sony Computer Entertainment Australia.)

In Australia, prices are a bit higher... or so they seem. You know... that whole economy exchange thing? Import fees, local taxes, etc. In this case, the Wii is about 400 AUD, which translates to about 297.70 USD. It's $249.99 here in the United States. That's about 50 more dollars in Australia for a variety of reasons. Rest assured that Nintendo is probably making the same amount off Australia's consoles, and that the jacking in price has something to do with where you decided to live.

The Xbox 360 will cost about 600 AUD, which translates to about 446.52 USD. The Premium package is $399.99 here in the United States. Once again, it's about 50 more dollars in Australia for a variety of reasons, and Microsoft probably doesn't make any more money off of Australia than they do here.

Now, see? Sony thinks those two are expensive, but they didn't comment on the price of the PlayStation 3. I wonder why? Well, let's take a peek. In Australia, the PS3 will cost a whopping 1000 AUD, which is about 744.21 USD. The high-end PS3 will cost 599 USD here in the States. That makes Australia's systems almost $150 more they are is here! I'm not sure what subjects the PS3 to more taxes and fees than the 360 and the Wii, but I would think that it would only be about $50 more than the other consoles, wouldn't you agree?

...and Sony has the guts to say the competition is too expensive. TOO EXPENSIVE!

It seems people are still using old addresses.

Alright, everyone! Listen up!

Please check your bookmark links and/or your website links. Please change all links for this site to "www.rivenwolf.net". Not "rivenwolf.net", not "www2.rivenwolf.net", not "www2.rivenwolf.net:808"... "www.rivenwolf.net". You may, of course, link to "www.rivenwolf.net/weblog" if that's what you need, but please use "www.rivenwolf.net" instead of anything else.

That has always worked in the past, and will always work in the future, so please link using that address. In a few weeks, I may disable all the old addresses if I don't need them. If I move back to TW's server, I'll probably have to use them again, but please only use "www.rivenwolf.net".

GOT IT?!

This was on the Peter Heck Show a while ago... the announcement that they were going to attempt this, that is. But, apparently, it seems that North Korea claims to have successfully completed their first nuclear weapons test. Slashdot, of course, is cheering the fact that they have nukes now, because that means the "US will stay off their backs". What the HECK is that all about?

I think... maybe... the fact that the United States is "on their backs" is because... well... North Korea can't even successfully launch a conventional missile. You remember that, right? They tested a long range missile carrier and it failed. Japan was rather shaken up about it. They didn't know what was going on because we all know how North Korea likes to play fair and let people know what's going on.

Anyone with a head on their shoulders will realize that maybe the US (along with every other country strong enough to give a care) is "on their backs" because they don't have the maturity to develop nukes? I'm sorry, but if they don't even have functional missile delivery systems, why do they need to be build nuclear devices? It's like... they're behind the wheel of a semi-truck without figuring out how to drive yet! Jurassic Park comes to mind. A particlar line from the movie from Ian Malcolm when they're eating dinner after the tour of the main building? Talking about how the Jurassic Park scientists stood on the shoulders of those who came before them. They didn't learn the technology and techniques themselves, and thus had no sense of responsibility for what they were doing. They were so caught up with the question on if they COULD make dinosaurs, that they didn't stop to think about if they SHOULD make dinosaurs... and we all know how THAT turned out.

Everyone needs to shelf their petty political whining and just think about what's happening here... an unpredictable country with faulty warhead carriers has just told everyone that they know how to make nukes. You guys should be worrying about your lives instead of how this affects presidential elections and the United States' "meddlesome" ways. I mean, sure... other countries have nukes and we haven't really had a problem since the Cold War, but you have to admit that those countries are pretty cooperative nowadays. North Korea is some crazy unbridled communistic society that... well, to be honest, they can't be trusted. Not with nukes... not with anything. They're unpredictable and they're just plain scary. I mean they're REALLY frightening.

I'm sure someone who never posts a comment for anything but my controversial posts is going to speak up. "We have no right to tell other countries what to do." Come on... It's not safe for the entire planet for these guys to have nuclear weapons. They've had an insane government for ages now, and they just got doomsday weapons to threaten everyone with... on delivery systems that don't even work. This is a global catastrophe waiting to happen. Do you honestly think that North Korea is capable of sharing some of the responsibility for the entire planet?

...but the morons on Slashdot are cheering them on.