toosigma

My primary Windows machine, which had happily been running Windows 2000 for nearly 5 years, finally gave up the ghost about two weeks ago. While sad at the loss, I had been contemplating an upgrade for some time, so I broke down and bought the new hardware. Given that I still need at least one Windows box on my network, and that my preferred Win OS was nearly 8 years old, I splurged and bought a copy of Vista Home Premium. I’ve been reading plenty of articles that while Vista may be slow, it still works and most of the major bugs have been worked out since the release over a year ago. I figured that I needed to take the step forward, since Windows isn’t going away anytime soon, and I need at least some familiarity with it for my job.

All the parts arrived on Monday, and I had everything assembled and ready to install. I plug in the Vista install disc, and leave it to run overnight. After waking up, I find Vista is installed, and waiting for final configuration info - which I enter, and then start the OS. Everything runs fine for about five minutes, before the system mysteriously reboots. Figuring it was just some patch or driver install, I log back in, and about two minutes in, I get a lovely BSD, followed by a reboot. After getting back in, the troubleshooter tells me there’s an unrecoverable hardware error with either the CPU, RAM, Power Supply, or the Motherboard. I’ve gotten the occasional bad part before, so I take it at face value, and start testing the various components. Three days later, after running the most stringent testing programs running for over 16 hours each, I’ve discovered no errors, no reboots. Of course, my testing utilities all run off Linux kernels, so I’m reasonably certain there isn’t a problem with the hardware.

Still, every time I boot into Vista, I get IRQ conflicts, random graphics errors, and the repeated BSDs that Windows seems so fond of. I’m almost ready to break down and install Windows 2000 - since it served me so well for so many years - I actually managed to achieve a maximum uptime of 74 days. Of course, the video card manufacturers seem to have decided that Win2k is no longer viable, and have stopped writing drivers for that OS. If I do go that route, I’ll probably have to drop $40-$150 on a older video card, or I could finally take the Windows XP plunge I’ve managed to avoid for so many years, also at a cost of $130+.

Suffice to say, I’m not a fan of Microsoft at this moment.

The Chatty DM just posted an excellent article that sums up a lot of what I’ve been trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to express about D&D 4th Edition.

This is a response to Phil’s Global Warming post (also posted as a reply on his site):

First, there is no “correct” amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - the concentration has varied dramatically throughout history, sometimes being many times the current value (such as during the Mesozoic Era). Using the weight of carbon dioxide is a poor metric, so I’ll use a percentage concentration value instead. Over the past 600,000 years (using a time-frame more appropriate to the evolution of our species), we can get a pretty good estimate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from ice core samples. Based on those results, the value has fluctuated from about 200 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm up until the time of the Industrial Revolution. Since that time, it has jumped nearly 100 ppm to almost 400ppm. Based on the Vostok Ice Core samples, a variation of 100ppm correlates to (but not necessarily causes) a 6-8 degree temperature change.

Your use of the hurricane example implies that humans are the primary source of energy. In truth, the sun provides virtually all of the energy driving any climate or weather. The human activity that may threaten global climate change need not be massive or focused. It need only take advantage of the effects of resonance - a small change made in the right circumstance can cause a dramatic effect. By increasing the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, we may slightly increase the global temperature. That small increase can perturb the normal carbon cycle - releasing greater quantities of natural CO2 from the oceans, increasing H2O (another greenhouse gas) evaporation, both of which will increase the temperature change. Those changes will in turn force other changes, eventually driving the climate to a new equilibrium when (and if) the forcing effects are either balanced or removed.

Your example on volcanism as a superior greenhouse producer is flawed in several points:

First, your use of Mount Pinatubo as a “typical” eruption is far from accurate. Pinatubo rated a 6 on the VEI scale - making it one of about 40 or so eruptions in the last 10,000 years. On average, we’d expect one such eruption every 250 years. Consider also that the VEI index is exponential, such that VEI 5 is only 1/10 as explosive as VEI 6. The typical “10 daily” volcanic eruptions have a VEI of 0 or 1. Therefore, your “for the cheap seats” calculation - that the volcanoes erupting daily were even 1/10th as powerful as Pinatubo - is off by several orders of magnitude. The daily eruptions are typically less than 1 millionth of Pinatubo’s power. That means that the actual daily volcanic contribution to global warming is approximately equal to about 2 hours worth of human pollution. Or, humans produce twelve times as much “pollution” as volcanoes.

If we instead use Pinatubo as the benchmark and based on historically documented eruptions, we’ve had approximately 200 VEI6-equivalent eruptions in the last 10,000 years, or one every 50 years. That would make volcanism approximately 6 times as effective at polluting as humans.

The EMA quote does mention that Pinatubo released the largest cloud of “climate-modifying” gases since Krakatoa. While the volume of aerosols is most certainly accurate, and far in excess of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. However, that statistic is misleading - it strongly implies that all the aerosols released in the eruption have greenhouse effects. It ignores the fact that only very few gases have a greenhouse effect (in that they strongly absorb infrared radiation at specific wavelengths). The vast majority of volcanic aerosols do not exhibit the greenhouse effect - I’ve seen estimates that CO2 concentration in volcanic aerosols is as low as 1%. In fact, the vast quantity of larger particulates - which act to shade the earth from insolation - dominate the relatively small effect of what few greenhouse gases are released. This is born out by worldwide temperature charts which routinely show a drop in temperature following a major volcanic eruption.

Still, let’s assume that volcanism is a significant source of atmospheric CO2 - on the order of 6 times more effective than human pollution (i.e. assuming that the entire volume of volcanic aerosols have greenhouse effects). Even at 1/6th intensity, the human contribution will have some effect on the equilibrium concentration of CO2. If the climate was “balanced” before the addition of the human effect, then that effect will serve to steadily drive the climate in that direction. It really doesn’t matter how large and dramatic the natural cycle is - human contribution represents an unbalanced variable to the equation. Imagine a scale with two 60-ton weights balanced equally - adding an extra ton to one side is going to tip the scales. If you add a ramp between the two 60-ton weights - such that the higher one pours material into the lower, representing the forcing effects in the carbon cycle - you may not even need a full ton, it’s possible a single pound difference may start the transfer, resulting in a dramatic imbalance.

Now, there is still plenty of debate on exactly how the climbing CO2 concentrations will relate to climate change. The effect will definitely increase global temperatures, but how much? Is it dominated by other effects (such as increased cloud cover)? While the Kyoto Protocol does recommend the prudent step of limiting CO2 emissions, it’s effect is not uniformly applied to the global community. Kyoto specifically does not address the potential dangers of the Chinese Industrial Revolution - the world’s largest population using heavily CO2-emitting technologies that have long been replaced in first-world countries. It’s probably not the time for dramatic or draconian measures to restrict CO2 emission, unless they are applied universally to the entire planet. Even if we were to stop all anthropogenic emissions today, some estimate it would take 60-100 years before CO2 concentrations return to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. If existing CO2 concentrations are going to cause a change, there is little (if anything) we can do about it. I’ll also agree that it’s possible that conditions in some areas will improve with climate change, but I strongly suspect that such changes will be balanced by deterioration in other areas, resulting in a zero-sum game. Furthermore, the primary reason to restrict CO2 emissions is to prevent the change in climate - if that change is already inevitable, we are likely better off investing our resources in minimizing the effects of that change than trying to prevent it in the first place.

Of course, the primary effects of global climate change will be felt by those without sufficient resources to cope with the change (mostly Third World countries). Given that those primarily responsible for the change are First World nations, the entire process of climate change is yet another massive transfer of wealth from the impoverished nations of the world to the wealthy. Thus it doesn’t seem particularly fair (at least to me).

Finally, I find it hard to take seriously the scientific opinion of a man who says 2.97E12 has no common English word for it. I’ve personally heard the word “trillion” bandied about in fairly pedestrian conversation. If he doesn’t know it, that casts some serious doubt on his scientific credentials. I’d especially call into question his “junk science” statement. I’ve read a several of the scientific papers in support of (and in opposition to) Global Warming - all of them were far more scientific in their presentation than his article.

This post is a response to JD Wiker on Why 4E Doesn’t Feel Like D&D.

The first point is that trying to judge a half-seen preview as representative of the entire game is a potential problem. It’s entirely possible that the impression he’s gotten is based only on the limited information currently available, and with the release of the full rules (not due until early June) those impressions will prove to be unfounded.

Second point - decrying 4E for not explicitly supporting unusual actions, while giving a pass to earlier editions seems unfair. None of the earlier editions had explicit rules for throwing sand in an opponents face, or using a spear to pole-vault. Just because 4E doesn’t have them either doesn’t make it any more or less D&D than its predecessors.

I don’t believe either of these points forms the crux of Mr. Wiker’s opinion. Rather, his article seems to decry the trend that favors the rules over empowering the DM. While I’ll agree that the trend towards increasing the authority of the ruleset has definitely occured, I disagree that the purpose of it is to disenfranchise DMs. I further disagree with the conclusion that the purpose in increasing the authority of the rule system is meant to homogenize the play experience by making all DMs the same. I do agree that it’s highly unlikely that any two DMs will run a game exactly the same, and that attempting to achieve that goal across the entire breadth of the role-playing community is impossible.

The focus of increasing rules authority in 4th Edition is to reduce the reliance on the DM to adjudicate everything. More standard options means that most PCs are capable of staying “in bounds” while still having a variety of exciting choices. Players in 4E can still go “out of bounds” - but anything that isn’t explicitly covered in the rulebook still has to be handled by the DM. Minimizing DM adjudication does indeed reduce the minimum skillset necessary to become a DM. As a result, you will likely see more DMs who are uncomfortable adjudicating things that aren’t explicitly covered by the rules. However, you will also see more DMs. By lowering the barrier to entry for DMs, 4E will likely increase the abundance of DMs. They may not hold a candle to the old guard of 1E DMs who have run thousands of campaigns and can wing an entire campaign fueled only by caffeine and pizza - but they might eventually reach that level.

Simply put, DMing is hard. Some may have an inherent gift for it, but I’d wager that the vast majority of players consider it a much more daunting task than being a player. A proof, consider how many books, blogs, or other sources are focused on “being a better player” compared to the number on “being a better DM.” Increasing the authority of the rules can take the pressure off the DM. Less pressure to perform means more opportunity to pursue advancement (through reading the aforementioned material, or simply through more practice).

To use a restaurant parallel - older editions offered a menu with three courses: appetizer, main course, and dessert. 1E offered salad for the appetizer, steak for the main course, and cheesecake for dessert. If you wanted anything different, you could make a special request to the chef - who might have the skills and supplies to accede to your request… or he might not. 4E offers a list of a couple dozen appetizers, main course, and desserts, all ready-made from the factory, just heat and eat. You can mix and match off the menu as you see fit. If none of the menu options seems worthwhile, you can still ask the chef to prepare something special. Chefs in the 4E style may be less capable of special orders than the old 1E chefs, but there are likely to be a lot more of them.

D&D is the gateway drug of the RPG community. Most players start out playing D&D, and those who become most addicted to role-playing eventually try other systems. By lowering the barrier to entry for DMs and players alike by making the rules both simpler and more expressive, Wizards has the potential to expand the relatively niche RPG market. I’ll agree that the overall quality of DMs or players may decrease as a result - but an increased market means more money for RPG publishers, which in turn can lead to more quality RPG material, more freelancing opportunities, and a more compelling role-playing experience for all involved.

Empowering DMs is a good thing. I don’t believe for a second that 4E will encourage existing empowered DMs to suddenly stop running their games as they see fit. I might believe that we’ll see an influx of players who are less comfortable with DM empowerment - especially if those empowered DMs fudge the rules to the detriment of their characters. If the DM is fudging for the sake of a better experience - increasing the enjoyment of those at the table - I don’t believe that there is any problem. If, on the other hand, the DM is fudging for his own aggrandizement at the expense of the players - I feel that the slighted players are perfectly within their rights to complain.

Finally, there is also an argument to be made - by increasing the scope and authority of the rules, it makes it easier for DMs to grasp their own empowerment via imitation. As an example, based off of the material available to date, I could probably make a pretty interesting “sand to the face” power. An encounter power (once used in an encounter, enemies are unlikely to fall for it again) requiring a standard action and access to some sort of material (dust, sand, water) and a range of 1 square. Attack roll is Dex vs Reflex. A hit results in the target being blinded, save ends. I won’t say it only took me two seconds to come up with, but it certainly wasn’t long.

Some may have noticed that my posts have picked up in the past week or so. I’m currently striving to improve my writing through forced practice. Namely, I’m trying to do the following:

• Write for at least one hour every day
• Post the results of your writing at least once every 2-3 days
• Keep writing for at least 30 days.

I’m currently on Day 7 - and I’m starting to feel the “quality crunch.” Specifically, that the quality of my posts is declining, and I’m less willing to post what I write. Given my tendencies towards perfectionism, I’m forcing myself to publish even when I’m not really satisfied with the results - following the philosophy that more “good enough” content is better than less “perfect” content. Hopefully, the added practice writing will improve my ability while at the same time providing some meaningful content for you, the reader. That said, please don’t hesitate to provide constructive criticism (should you so desire), as it can only help me improve.