Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Nightshadow's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Monday, May 28th, 2012
6:45 pm	When Finance and Gaming collide - Blizzard and their RMAH Should have been posted months ago, but this is the one point ALL the major organisations have missed in regards with the Real Money Auction House. It only recently came back to my mind after Diablo 3 has had rumours of a break in via SessionID spoofing, but the below should explain exactly why the moment they launch it, they detonate, irrevocably, and totally. For those who don't know, Blizzard want to open an auction house where you have the option of either purchasing an item for in game currency, or if the seller permits, in a real currency, as long as blizzard take a cut for handling the transaction. So if I wanted to sell the long hellfire sword with +200 attack, +200 life and life drain for 300 dollars, to someone, I could, and blizzard would take a cut for permitting me to make that sale. Sounds like it's safe enough, right? It's a simple enough idea. Well, no. There's problems to begin with (namely tax evasion and tarrifing issues) but believe it or not, this isn't in fact the thing that will utterly destroy Blizzard once it goes off. Yep, this is PEANUTS compared to the danger I'll outline below. If you've read the EULA, (I know, I know, who reads them these days?) you'll note that Blizzard state a few things: 1. All items are ultimately owned by Blizzard, and are in Blizzard's possession at all times. 2. In the case of arbitration, Blizzard's decision is final. 3. You have no recourse if Blizzard's decision is final and does not go your way. In short, no appeals. 4. You do not have rights for compensation if in Blizzard's decision, they deem it unnecessary for any changes made. I'm summarising, but that's pretty much what it amounts to. Now, this is what's going to happen at some point along the line. 1. Blizzard suffer another security break in, spoofing, a technical glitch or they may even decide to make a rebalancing that consequently drastically affects the state of items. (Safe bets say that one of the above is going to happen) 2. People get stiffed. (Either by having items lost or sold for pennies, acquiring an effectively stolen item, or being adversely affected by a financial penalty purely imposed by Blizzard by fiat) Now Blizzard have two choices at this point - they can make the affected parties whole, as well as compensate them for losses, but that could prove to be incredibly expensive (I will show HOW expensive in a bit) so it's more likely... 3. Blizzard hide behind their EULA (which is summarised above) and rule their decision final. Now, as far as Blizzard is concerned, that's about as far as it needs to go, and it's safe. Except... 4. The moment they do that and someone tips the right person off, every single financial regulatory agency on the PLANET go after them, and destroy Blizzard, and will get a summary judgment to dismantle them. '... Wait, WHAT? How the hell did that happen?' Well, this is where the trap of Blizzard's own doing goes off. Here's why the fourth point happens. You see, Blizzard: 1. Retains the physical holdings of the items. 2. Manages the assignment of ownership of said items. 3. Charges a fee for transferring rights of ownership of said items. 4. Manages an orderly market for holders of said items to transact with each other. 5. Ensures (well it has to in every sense) that all transactions are carried out, and done so correctly. Geez, those functions sound really, really familiar. What ELSE passes this smell test? ... Oh, I know, The ASX in Australia reminds me of these basic functions. So does the FTSE, the Dow Jones, the S&P500, the NASDAQ and the NYSE, among many others. What do they all have in common? If you guessed 'They're all stock exchanges' have a cookie. And basically Blizzard (for all intents and purposes) operates JUST LIKE ONE. Why? It handles all delivery. It alone can only handle delivery of items in the exchange. It also handles the transactions and charges a fee FOR said transactions, and manages orderly assignment. It just so happens that each and every item in Diablo 3 can be considered a single share, of variant prices. I'm sorry, what else am I supposed to mistake Diablo 3's Real Money Auction House AS? Now the fun part is that there's a few pesky things called 'Laws' that govern the running of these exchanges. First things first - By LAW, if an exchange adversely affects a shareholding by its direct means - through a breech of security, a technical glitch or a direct ruling that's not covered in its constitution (and is not illegal as stated in the various financial laws, which in effect means they can't actually do all that much other than threaten to delist an item due to lack of compliance) the exchange MUST duly compensate affected people for their loss, up and including INTEREST on said loss. In real exchanges, there's a HUGE investment on them to ensure that 'orderly trade' is working during its hours of operation. They pay hacker teams six or seven figures a YEAR to break the system into two, complete with full access, so they can patch it when they find a flaw, and nail it before anyone can get to it. They also put multiple layers of transactionaing, and security checks so you don't get rogue insiders trying to flip for their friends for a profit, and since the people who actually EXECUTE trades are often inside the building, it means the odds of someone else fraudulently selling stock owned by someone else (oh, for say a penny for an insider to get it and flip for say 50 a share) are all but impossible. They also have price controls, which SHUT DOWN a stock movement the moment anything fishy goes on (to the point they demand 'show cause' statements of the COMPANY and usually some traders if a movement behaves strangely, and they don't even allow direct buy/sell transfers - they use what's known as the best buy/sell bid. Not to say that the system works that well in practice, but... What does Blizzard have? Well, not very much. You log in, you directly buy and sell. No protections, no questions asked. And now to compensation - Just how much does a real exchange compensate in the case of failure? (You'll enjoy this) Facebook provided a timely example of how expensive to an exchange a screwup is. On IPO launch day, Facebook stock executions suffered a 2 hour and 50 minute DELAY in notifications about what stock was bought or sold, and how much of it. This caused chaos in the markets that day - because of this technical glitch, people didn't know if they actually OWNED Facebook stock during the day! (They might have thought they sold it, or they bought it, but the system couldn't tell them) They all could claim compensation by the way from the NASDAQ. How much, do you ask? Well, Facebook was worth 1000 million (or a billion.) NASDAQ's compensation bill was at this point in time about 20 million, although it's expected to be at least 30-45 million. Or anywhere between 2-5% compensation, and by the way, NO ONE LOST ANY SHARES. And by the way, this was for a GLITCH. I cannot emphasize this enough - they didn't lose shares, they just weren't told for a period of 3 hours who actually owned them. The good news is of course NASDAQ (just like every exchange) collects fees, but puts aside a massive fund just IN CASE stuff like this happens. It does, statistically, every so often. Can't get everything of course. By the way, the above compensation is required by law. Mostly because if you DON'T compensate for losses caused by the exchange, the parties affected can sue you for losses + triple damages, and it'd be the fastest open and shut case you'd see in financial law. You simply DO NOT MESS AROUND in cases like this. Do Blizzard have anything of the sort to protect them when things mess up? (Like oh, their very recent security breech?) ... Nope. The only thing it has, is the ability to hide behind its EULA to protect itself if things go wrong. Thing is, the moment it does that, by law, they willfully breech it. This sets them up for a treble damage suit, and Blizzard have absolutely no defense against it. (They can't even claim they didn't know, because that protects you from exactly NOTHING in financial law. There's something called 'due diligence' that must be conducted, as part of operating as an exchange. This also includes 'If by law, are you operating one?' by the way.) It ALSO doesn't help that some places do NOT permit operation of an exchange without the requisite licenses. Australia do not permit one, for a start, so the moment ARPA catch wind of it, Blizzard Australia's branch is immediately toast. The amusing part? This is a top tier financial breech, so it even pierces LLC. In short? The Blizzard and Activision boards are now part of the open season. I'm not sure who governs the other equivalents but I do know that Germany and London have very similar rules, and I'm fairly sure that Japan probably does too and safe bets that the US (Activision Blizzard's home ground) has various governance as well. Given all the above, it makes you wonder if they REALLY thought it through, doesn't it? (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 27th, 2012
11:31 pm	More thoughts - Starting your own business and the mindset needed to succeed. I've been working with someone in developing their own business at the moment - It's in early stages, and we're still learning things, but here's something to take home with you and consider, from someone who's doing it the hard way. Namely, me, as sort of mentor, sort of partner, and definitely learning. 1. Never assume that anything will go your way. You could have the best idea on the planet, but execution problems means you can't perform. We're finding we're making our mistakes now, prior to a launch though while we're developing a lineup, so it means the cost of failure is low, while we still get the full value of our lesson. We had one in our brainstorming and R&D session today. The good news is that it's not a loss since we can use the result for something else - We're still scratching our heads how it happened though, which means we need to fish around a little for answers, and learn more. 2. It doesn't matter if you have the best idea on the planet, if you don't have the logistics to deliver from you to your clients or customers, you immediately lose. This means you can't assume that everything will go smoothly, (or worse yet) 'As smoothly as you planned'. Basically, you can plan for a total stop, but what happens when things hiccup? Can you handle the chaining but not completely deliberative problems, or is your plan really just 'everything goes according to plan' or 'Everything blows up?'. Failure to plan for partial success is just as bad as failing to plan for failure (or even worse, failing to plan for success!) I walked my friend through the basics of book keeping, or more accurately, how to organise things so you can actually see what your assets, consumables, your accounts payable (including legal obligations such as PAYG and Superannuation) and your accounts receivable are, and able to organize things in such a way that you can find things at a glance, to make successive business decisions. He doesn't have a accounting or financial background, so I broke it down for him in terms he understood and tried to drill a 'Don't get lazy' approach to book keeping. It's often your first defense in a failure - knowing where the money in the business goes helps a LOT. 3. The moment you assume that everyone is like you, it means that you really are in the wrong business - or namely, you shouldn't BE in the business of running your own business. Basically if you believe everyone (or anyone) thinks like you and should think like you, it really does mean you really should just consider working for someone else. The last one utterly frightens me, which explains why so many people fail at business. It scares me even more because that above concept probably explains a lot of problems in the world, even. 4. Don't assume you know everything, or even enough to perform. I expect to summarily be outfoxed in my understanding of small business and their legal and tax obligations as items come up (I got schooled the hard way by several people, which I'm grateful for, and it gives me a starting point), and we got a surprise which we're now having to figure out, but we both know that we're in it for the long haul, and are willing to put in our own time and what we need to save to at least try to get the development done, to perform as a going concern. 5. This links with the fourth - Never stop learning. The one thing I'm worried about is the fact that I've hit the peak of my skills and knowledge - if that's the case, I've clearly missed something big. I'd say 'never give up' but a good lesson to learn is to know when the math says 'Sorry, it can't work' and knowing when to cut your losses. I'll probably post on a occasional basis (Although I'm hoping on a weekly basis, as we continue to devote about one or two days a week in development) and I'm definitely hoping eventually I'll be confident enough to announce the business itself. (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 20th, 2012
11:12 pm	A thought - Friends, Enemies and Rivals. Here's something to consider... Nothing to prompt it, just something to consider. Ideally: Your friends should be smarter, wiser, more perceptive and more experienced than you. Your rivals should be about the same level, with a similar world view, similar reactions, and as experienced as you are. Your enemies should be less intelligent, foolish, short sighted and inexperienced. When you find that the order is reversed, you have a very big problem. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, May 14th, 2012
6:36 pm	Closing another chapter Yep, life is all about chapters, and as all things begin, they all end. I closed an IRC channel recently, mostly because it's run its course. It's an instructional exercise, mostly because sometimes you find that well, we all change and we move on. (Comment on this)
Friday, April 27th, 2012
9:18 pm	"Theft is illegal only because Governments dislike competition" Normally, it'd be a joke, but well, when you read some stuff, you have to wonder. http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-17-26/ultimate-irony-major-life-insurance-firms-settle-state-ag%E2%80%99s Now, there's a couple of punchlines. Most of them are outlined there. Basically, what none of the parties did was actually illegal, although it certainly doesn't bode well for customer service for anyone. (You can't be liable to a bill or claim until it has been posted, and state governments in the United States DO have laws on the books claiming right to property or assets that remain unclaimed beyond a certain period, that definition of unclaimed being 'Not checked in X months'.) There is however a SECRET punchline in that morbidly amusing mess. What is that secret punchline? Well, you'd note that they settled and the money has gone out to the defendants. This means they won't prosecute the case again. You'll however note that since a judge hasn't ruled at all, and there's nothing ELSE in the settlement about it, it doesn't stop the State Governments from doing what they wanted to do the first time from trying again. Fun, isn't it? (Comment on this)
Saturday, April 14th, 2012
4:25 am	Some fun - demographics according to Google... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_FBoF9tBpM That's the video in question. Now, I was bored (Apparently it's strangely popular) and checked the demographics, mostly cause I could (and the fact that people keep commenting on it now. I think I'm breaking people's brains or something) and in the process found out something interesting... Audiences This video is most popular with: Gender Age Female 13-17 Female 18-24 Female 45-54 The first one is no surprise. It's right in the middle of the Vocaloid fanbase, and is entirely expected. The second is not really a surprise. It's right in the middle of fangirl activism, and is entirely expected. The last one? Um, that IS surprising. Well sort of, I guess. I didn't expect such an age gap to happen... Or at least, I've got no idea... (Comment on this)
Monday, April 2nd, 2012
7:27 pm	... And now for the things I WANTED to write - Understanding the Gaming Industry. This is probably going to shock a lot of people, but mostly because most people do not understand the fundamentals of business and RISK. Or more accurately, the gut reaction will be the reverse of what reality is. Now, it's been known (or if you haven't noticed, it's your wakeup call) that the computer gaming industry as a whole has been on a bit of a tightrope. Several major industry players have commented about stuff like trying to end secondary sales, because they don't see the proceeds of the used market, for instance. Now here's the first bombshell - The debate over it is very good, except one problem - It's actually a cover for a completely different problem. Read the previous sentence again. If you missed the implication, it is this - The actions caused (Namely trying to kill the secondary market) are in fact a SYMPTOM of something else entirely. Got your attention? Good. Now, the question no one's really asking (but SHOULD be asking) is this: "So WHY are gaming companies so desperate to try get extra revenue, particularly in the US?" No, the easy answer is 'They want the money cause they're greedy bastards' but is in fact incorrect, in the main. (Or more accurately, everyone wants more money, but the secret is in the intention.) No, they actually NEED the revenue, for exactly one reason. Welcome to the second bombshell. They ate a 33% (or so, inflation's always a bit tricky to calculate that way) REVENUE loss. Now, how can I say this? That's easy. Games in the 2001 area were in the vicinity of 40-50 US. They were in the realm of about 60 AU or so, or about 5000-6000 yen. This is retail, no LE, no fancy trailings. Now, roll the clock about 10 years. Games have increased about 10 US (or about 15-20%) In Australia, they increased by about nearly half (90-110 AU) In Japan they're usually posting 7000-8000 yen (or about 33% or so) Now, what's wrong with this? Oh, nothing, until you consider that the inflation in that 10 or so year period was averaged at about 3% a year (And that's being very, very generous. It's closer to 4%) In short? Gaming in the US in particular is uh, compensated, greatly. By the tune of about 30% or so. Of their REVENUE, not their profits. Read the previous statement again. Now, I'm going to tell you something scarier. This is from the figures I got in 2004, when I was actively on duty. A publisher would, at best, out of a $40 game sale, expect to see at ABSOLUTE MOST 35% of the sale of every game to cover its costs. Or about 15-16 dollars, although getting 12 per sale is more likely. This revenue will have to cover all its costs, interest costs, investor payouts, and the like. "... Wait, what?" Remember, computer gaming is what's known as a 'pay forward' operation. Or for those who don't understand, you CAN'T get profits (or any revenue) from a game until you have paid virtually ALL the costs of making said game. Or to be blunt, you can't even attempt to see a dime (nickel, cent, yen, whatever) until the game is complete and on shelves. "What about preorders?" The store holds those first. You can't forward that to the company until delivery has been taken. In fact, most of the profits are taken from manufacturing (A couple of dollars per copy), logistical costs (another 2 or so dollars, and the first two take up 10% of the value of the game), the store you purchase it from (They take about 10-15% and they have to, since they have rent, staff, marketing costs, electricity and their OWN profit margins), the warehouse/distributor (another 10-15% with their own costs, and we should be nearing the 40-50% of the TOTAL) taxes (they can range from a minimal 5% (duty only) to about 20% (VAT/GST/sales taxes + import taxes) which more or less can bring up the remainder and any extra costs (such as ESRB/Classification Board/CERO and outright litigation) that get incurred. So what does this mean? You're looking at a stupidly (yes, I might note, stupidly) risky enterprise. So let's do some math, shall we? In 2004, a million copy selling game would get you about 12 million. That's pretty good, until... Staff (if we assume it's a 12 month project with 10 full time staff, at about 40k per staff member average) is only 400k. You then have to assign managers, executive, administration costs and promotional staff. We'll be generous and assume that there's another 10 people full time (If you've seen the credits, you'll KNOW that the list is longer than that, even if you assume that those 10 people are in fact 30, as they're usually working multiple projects at a time) and they're averaged out at another 50k per person, or a cool half million. You'll have to pay rental costs (if we assume these people don't work out in the street) and we'll assume that it's a half decent office block, properly accounted for, and we'll assume they take up just TWO floors. Over the course of a year, it'd cost you we'll just say a clean half mill. (It's actually much higher, but we'll assume 3 projects are run in the building and all the admin staff get a free ride on their expenditures, okay? The figures get worse once you put them in.) Utility costs we assume (if there's 3 projects running at any given time) will account for say, 100k. (What, you want them to program without running water, electricity and building maintainence services?) So we're already at unavoidable costs of oh, about 1.6 million. Now, their actual OPERATING EXPENSES include capex (Capital Expenditures) which in their case involve maintainence of their equipment (not the building!) purchase of servers, workstations, monitors and in gaming case consoles and development kits, and given a depreciation rate of 33% and a failure rate of 5%, you're only looking (on average) a yearly expenditure of about 200k, a year, every year. Some years will be higher than others (Servers cost 10-20k EACH, by the way, and decent to high end workstations (for rendering work, for example) are in the vicinity of 5-8k, and get replaced every so often) and for more fun, the service contracts are worth about a THIRD of the equipment, and you'd be utterly insane to run without them. Oh, did I forget to mention that you'll require internal networking, and cisco routers will set you back oh, 3 to 5k each, and you'll need at least one router and one switch, and lots of cable to network them all up?) Then there's the web hosting, licencing costs (Sony charge a fee of at the time 50k just to be permitted to have the SDK for example) and other odds and ends that you need like offsite backups. It's pretty expensive stuff. So we're nearing 2 million, and by the way, you can't get out of ANY of these costs. Oh, and they haven't actually DONE anything yet either. Oh crap. Now, there's usually negotiations and the like that ensure bonuses. We'll assume they get a 33% bonus if they make a blockbuster (a million copies should ensure that one) so they get paid out a third again, and that's all of them, so there's another 250k gone. We then have to PAY for all of this - business rates were about 8% then, and your revolving credit account has to pay for part of this (We'll say a million at any given time) so there's another 80k down. Oh, and since the rest of it had to be raised by bonds in the market, you're looking at the remainder of about 10% on maturity (or another 300k.) Damnit, we've just hit 3.5 million, and we haven't actually, well, seen a cent yet. The game hasn't been made. Actual running costs include outsourcing (we'll say 100k for any contracting, commisioning and work for hire done), other licencing fees from using middleware, codecs or the like (We'll just say for the project another 100-200k) and then any royalty fees to the platform holder, if they exist (dependent on platform of course) We'll assume that any extra costs for the teams add up to about 500k (Split between development, advertising (you know, works for hire to produce commericals, advertising and whatever else you need to give the game a presence), administration and other tidbits. So that's about 4.5 million or so. We've made the game at least. Okay, now to attack the other end. There's currently 12 million. Your company tax rate on revenues is (depending on country and state) anywhere between 30% (! That's Australia for you) to about 15%. And it's on REVENUE, not your profits. (We'll assume that all dividends are paid out on a franked basis - ie, post tax) So we've lost anything from 3 million (ouch!) to a more realistic 1.5 million. So that's now 10.5 million. Shareholders will demand part of the cut. They will demand for the year... we'll say 10% of the revenue. There's another million (and change) earmarked to go right out the door. So all in all, you've made about five million. Not too bad. Some gets stashed away to fund future projects, some more is bonused away, others still is invested in equipment, and some of it goes towards the shareholders who'd want more money because the product sold so well. Until you look up, and note that if sales dropped by 50% they'd have broke even. If there were unforseen events like a game recall, or litigation, you could have easily lost another mill, or two, or five or so right there. (Doesn't happen? Ask Rockstar about GTA3 sometime.) Did I forget to mention that gaming is a really risky business? You've NO IDEA how a game will sell. Sleeper hits are all well and good, but if you don't get the revenue, you get into trouble. Now, that's back THEN, and that was a mega blockbuster of a game. 100% post cost profit is OBSCENE, and that requires all the stars to align, and basically require you to be Modern Warfare or something. Traditionally, the rate of return on your average game is about 20% if you're lucky. It's usually closer to 9-11%. Now, here's the scary part. That's 2004 figures. Now, the same notes apply, but add, oh, I don't know 33% to all those costs, and revenue on the other hand as gone up about a THIRD that 33%, so about 15% or so. Suddenly making a game has turned from a big risk/reward venture to something a little more nailbiting. Developers want more money (rightfully or wrongly, it's called inflation!) to pay THEIR bills, so do the rest of the staff, and your landlord, and the council/state you're based in, and your lawyer you have on retainer, and the electricity company... Now in 2012, those returns are closer to 5% on an average curve, and a bigger risk of losing it all. Or more accurately, when you run two exponential curves, with one compounding at a single percentage point or two above the other, you'll see a slow rise in the gap, before you find that the nature of exponential curves mean that they'll suddenly rapidly run away from you. (For those who do finance, you'll know this as the rule of 72, or the period it takes before a compound will DOUBLE the balance it's applied to.) I haven't finished the bombshells yet though. Here's the real bombshell. I can walk up to a bank TODAY, and get 6%, with no risk of losing my investment. Granted, you'd have to go to Australia to do it, but you can. Now this drives the cost of borrowing WAY up, as well, why should people lend you any lousy money to invest in a very risky post payment venture when they could literally book a flight to Australia, and get 6% on their returns without having to lose any sleep at night? The above is exactly what everyone's been deliberately skirting around - The reason why the industry is freezing up. Everyone's been deliberately ignoring the simple fact that companies have been trying to milk revenue by STEALTH (Namely DLC, cut back games, the freeimium model, selling advertising space in games, trying to kill the secondary market) because of the above. As consumers though, why ON EARTH would you want to voluntarily pay more? And there lies the conversation that no one's having. No one's willing to admit that inflation should have dictated they pay more. Developers and publishers don't want to admit that they sabotaged their own model (and they did it willingly, because they were gunning on a massive base with smaller revenue per sale so they could have budgets which have ballooned WAY beyond inflation) and consumers don't want to admit they're demanding too much (underpaying, demanding that games can't reuse assets from a previous game, in some cases demanding reusing an older engine is unacceptable, demanding unlimited support for a game). And consequently we are exactly where we are - an industry, which although making millions, is about to fall over, due to the fact no one learnt a damn thing. Developers in particular are guilty of this. They may not understand finance, but you'd THINK they'd understand math, since programming in a nutshell IS math. Consumers don't get a free pass though - there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can buy, and you can not buy, but you can't not buy then demand the product ANYWAY. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
6:16 pm	Time to chain it, it seems. From time to time, things seem to happen in a nice row. The modem decided to fall over as well. It's been replaced, although not to specification, so I'll be seeking out further equipment, unsurprisingly. It's not TOO much of a surprise, I guess. All equipment needs to be replaced eventually, and that's how it ends up being. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, March 28th, 2012
10:58 pm	Slowly rebuilding... The hard drive for the core 2 finally died (about a week before I was done with the migration to an i5 2400, no less) so I got caught out without backups, only because I was expecting to make it over, not literally have it fail part of the way through. So in short, I don't have any e-mail addresses anymore. It's probably a good thing, since it's one way to start afresh, with nothing except looking forward. It also reminds you that sometimes you'll need to get back to ground level, and remember the basics. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
3:23 pm	A little fun - Ever wondered what happens when you forget to complete the label? Well, sorry for the downtime, but I ordered a curtain, (via a consignment service) and I asked it to be delivered to Australia like you normally would. Except well, this happened: http://tracking.post.japanpost.jp/service/singleSearch.do?searchKind=S004&locale=en&SVID=024&reqCodeNo1=EJ110054902JP&reqCodeNo2=&reqCodeNo3=&reqCodeNo4=&reqCodeNo5=&reqCodeNo6=&reqCodeNo7=&reqCodeNo8 Yes, you read it right. EMS thought that the fastest way to Sydney from Tokyo was via New York. Now WHY did this happen? Rinkya (the consignment service of choice) failed to pop on a COUNTRY label. Namely, they forgot to specify it was for Australia. So EMS assumed it was an American address until they contacted EMS, who then contacted the USPS who then had to redirect the curtain back to Australia. So what curtain IS it? http://www.curtain-damashii.com/meruru/meruru007.html It's a happy ending, but still funny as hell. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, February 24th, 2012
5:47 pm	Now, in the 'stuff you can't possibly make up' department... http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text/120216-0002.htm#12021643000172 Someone's successfully scammed or attempted to scam about 15 trillion US dollars. I wish there was more to say about it. Question of course is, well, who? (Comment on this)
12:30 am	Things you'd think people would learn but don't. http://www.inc.com/jeff-haden/the-8-qualities-of-remarkable-employees.html For most part, someone who will follow processes is someone who'll keep things going in one place. If you want to move forward on the other hand... You need to find someone who doesn't fit that line. Of course, when you have demands of the former, with the expectations of the latter, it's not much of a surprise to find that most businesses can't and won't get ahead. They're very much two separate sides to the same coin. (Comment on this)
Saturday, February 11th, 2012
6:54 pm	This isn't new. This is however, very important. http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/il0ot/rgaming_what_do_you_think_about_this_guys_view_on/ One person I was talking with on reddit said that not consuming media you really wanted wasn't a reasonable option. Like, you have three options: buy it, pirate it, or rent it, but not having it at all wasn't something that was possible. It was quite a while ago but I think this explains much more than it should. In short? The industry is what it is, because we, as people, can't seem to make a stand on any sort of principle. Basically, we've lost our ability to make principled stands, and to action things, because well, we don't want to. Now, does it make piracy wrong? I don't know, but there's no point justifying it, which is what a lot of people do. And because we can't make principled stands, we seemingly hide behind excuses which... well, seem shallow. The scary part is of course, this is just one facet. Ever wonder why we get the government and society we have? You know, no responsiblity? Well, now you know. (Comment on this)
Friday, February 10th, 2012
1:42 pm	A quick test - NeTV out of the box, and potential implementations. It's not much to say apart from this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkW1PvyjCxA What's curious about it? It broke into the HDCP stream without actually decrypting anything. In this case, it displayed an overlay that displayed a twitter feed. For those who know what HDCP is, it's a curious implementation without breaking anything. For those who don't - just say it's a technical feat, not a presentation one. It's NOT a HDCP stripper though, which keeps it on the right side of the DCMA (Namely since it inserts INTO the stream without ever decrypting it, it's difficult to claim there's a breaking in which is required for DCMA to trigger), and it also can be used for non infringing purposes. There's a few drawbacks though, which major, at least at this point in time. It shows that it's in developmental stages, and shouldn't be bought if you're expecting anything resembling easy. - 1080p60/59.94/50 (And I think 30/29.97) isn't supported. 1080p24 IS though, curiously enough. I suspect it's mostly to do with the processing power. - Implementation's buggy - I couldn't get my twitter feed to work. - The control system is for a lack of better word atrocious. It really needs a better remote system, because right now, it's very, very painful. The html login's only marginally better (and I really mean marginally). - There's precious little else that can be done with it right now. There's not exactly much in applications done yet. However, as a purely legal device, it's a step in the right direction. It opens up purely LEGAL implementations that have potential. 1. Anime subtitling groups can distribute a subtitle for ANY BR and ensure that they can keep their powder dry. And I mean completely dry - distributing only a subtitle file with timing, text and maybe positioning is NOT illegal under any circumstances. It would also encourage people to get their own video, say via importing or from official sources. In short, if this was promoted as a solution, lawyers could chase down rippers and pirates with impunity AND have the moral right of way. Those who want to swipe the video are free to, but you can't exactly use the excuse of 'Well, it's the only way to watch anime subtitled fast' anymore, particularly if options open to support this. Coupled with say fast delivery of video from Japan at relatively reasonable pricing (say a 480p download at say 5 dollars for a 24 min episode? Say within a week of its last broadcast) fansubbers can fill in a gap, without actually EVER having to worry about legal issues. They provide a file to overlay a translation, and that's it. The lawyers can go chase actual copyright infringers instead. The best part is of course the fact that it can be redeployed - the DVD or BR can have the overlay done, or it can just be fed from a downloaded video, but that's not going to be the SUBTITLER's problem, as they are now exempted by law from any possible chain of prosecution (Unless of course they start providing video, or you know, start stealing other people's translations.) The only people who should be worried are those who license anime to the US, but a little bit of pressure might be good, to make them make better dubs, wouldn't it? Of course, it won't catch on anytime SOON, since this costs a lot more than 'free', but it's an interesting development regardless. 2. Various broadcasts can use it to supplement their broadcasts with their own programmatical overlays. This is useful if for example you're the SDA and are doing a Games Done Quick run, and need a pain free and 90-100% automated process to post donation comments. There'd be no more typing (although you may want a delay (say 30 seconds to a minute) and a way to remove comments in queue you don't approve of, so you can ensure that no one starts posting obscenities or other dodgy material such as malicious or other lawbreaking links) involved and it'd be right there. You could also use it for your own advertising, or other promotional work, such as declaring future scheduled screenings or performances, or even just a chat of what's in the channel at the time. And this is just two implementations that can be done. Can I personally do them? No. It'd take me months to work on just understanding Linux and C++ (I think) to even attempt to create the mechanisms, although I do know how the results would be laid out, as well as expected performance and the like. (And I can troubleshoot surprisingly well.) Still, it's a purely legal, and I'd argue quite important step forward. Now all we need to see is a way forward. (Comment on this)
Friday, January 27th, 2012
9:51 pm	Aww, I wanted to bid on it... http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/julia-gillard-shoe-for-sale-on-ebay-20120127-1qkyr.html I mean, it's almost like Cinderella. Well, except it's from a politican and.. Actually, nevermind. It'd ruin my perception of a fairy tale. But it is amusing to say the least... (Comment on this)
Friday, January 20th, 2012
1:05 pm	A few more thoughts for the day... http://blogs.hbr.org/schwartz/2012/01/no-is-the-new-yes-four-practic.html I think the fact that corporates at the very top are finally noticing the obvious - That too much now means we don't get anything done, just what we think we NEED to do, in a hurry. We consequently don't achieve anything. It's a nice sentiment, although you don't see that sort of calm focus in workplaces these days... (Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 18th, 2012
8:53 pm	... And let SOPA begin! Been injured the last few weeks (Yeah, it's my right hand now) and been unable to do much. Typing hurts a lot. What's been more amusing s the SOPA and PIPA business. The fun part is of course the fact that people haven't been looking in the right direction. The web generally (Google and Wikipedia are two examples) have been up in arms over it, but the problem is of course the real damage isn't there. If you want real scary, try 'A US declaration of Economic war on everyone else because the US says so'. A bit like NPAA of 2012 for economic purposes. Well, the other is scary enough (because the US president can decide at any time to hit a foreign national, cause he believes he's a threat to security) but the other's more scary - because an IP holder can rock up to Paypal, Mastercard or Visa and go 'Freeze all payments, because we believe they're an IP infringer'. No proof required, just a statement of 'good faith'. Yeah, mull on the consequences of THAT for a while. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, December 25th, 2011
8:42 pm	As always, a notice about a lack of notice. Almost every year (It'd be every year if I didn't forget) I always put a notice like this up. I don't like this time of year, for a variety of reasons. There's the usual hypocritical angle, but I have a memory a bit longer than most. This time around though, I had the pleasure of doing some strange stuff, and subjecting myself to material which had me wondering for a moment if I really believed in free speech, or just in speech I liked. I was pretty close to walking that line, cause some things you see (and to be fair, the images were still, but the execution was plain out DISTURBING) had me going 'Maybe this should be banned' before remembering that free speech is something you don't pick and choose. You either believe in it or don't, and sometimes you need to remember it's not real and that it's a fictional depiction. I don't have to like what's being said, but I DO have to agree that they can say whatever they like. They're also not entitled for other people to listen either, and I reserve the right to call them disturbing sick puppies. With that public service announcement, I'll resume with the usual notice. Please leave me alone for a while, as it's the time of year I let myself recover, just enough. It's not like I have friends who are going to ambush me or anything, or drag me out though, so I expect this period to be uneventful and quiet. Well, I hope anyway. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
5:11 am	On global warming or climate change, and the underlying problem. Now, by now, you may have heard about the whole climategate scandal (which for most part is a hack which managed to obtain a series of emails from two universities, based on their inbound and outbound mails.) Thing is, I'm not going to discuss the science. I don't need to, simply because (ironically) the science is actually moot to this entire point. I don't have to be a climate denier/skeptic or a feverent proponent of climate change theory, because the below applies no matter what my stance actually is and this is ultimately the problem. I'm going to discuss the scenario which this exists. Namely, I'm going to talk the political climate and realities around it. Now, for the sake of simplicity, I'm going to round down India and China's populations to 2.5 billion total, and assume that there are 6.5 billion people in the world at the moment. (It's actually more, but bear with the rough estimates.) If you look at the figures, you'll realise something almost immediately. China and India make up (for better or worse) about a third to 2/5ths of the entire world's population. This isn't exactly hard math, and there's no emotional outtake here. Now, this means you WILL have to talk China and India into joining in on any carbon emission deal or other initiative to combat this effect. You simply don't get any choice, because they represent a block so large, they basically get sabotage rights by simply deciding to say 'screw you' and just continue on their merry way. For an idea. Australia's going to enact a carbon tax. For every tonne of carbon we're saving per person, each person in China can immediately nullify by emitting about 20 grams of carbon in the space of the same period. That's the sort of parity you're dealing with. Now, you ask, why would they decide to say 'screw you' when we're looking at something which is outright promising to, well, change the landscape forever? It's going to affect them too right? I'll note this to start - China and India are sure as hell interested in expanding their spheres of influence. China in particular, but India's sort of liked the idea of becoming the outsourcing nation of the world, and China's sort of liked being the manufacturing goldmine (even if their products are dubious) of the planet, if the oh, last twenty or thirty years are of any indication. You don't get nuclear weapons just so you can sit back and start whistling Dixie. They're also heavily interested in joining the big leagues - they want in on the industrialized countries of Europe, Japan, Australia, the US. Who can blame them, since with money and power brings influence. They want in on the G20. They want a permanent seat at the UN security council (Well China has it) and they want to call the shots. And industrialization has been their ticket to being just that - levering their populations to produce stuff. They want to follow in the path to power the US and Europe has taken. Of course, this comes at a massive, massive cost. Entire cities are polluted, and a lot of people are dying in cities and towns in China and India. If you ever wanted to see good reasons to believe in environmentalism, just compare a photo of an area in China thirty years ago, and compare it with last week. Even in relatively untouched areas, it can prove REALLY damn disturbing. But they clearly know that, and they simply (for their own internal reasons) don't give a stuff, otherwise they'd you know, do something about it. Thing is, clearly we HAVE to tell China and India to slow down. We don't get a choice. If we don't lots of bad stuff will happen. (Depending how you see the current frame differs of course. Climate change is one way of looking at it. Personally, I just have the very bad feeling there isn't actually enough room to dump toxic junk, and eventually I'm going to see lots of things that can kill us make their way across the Pacific one way or the other and we're not going to live long enough for climate change to actually matter.) So there's the backdrop. We have to talk two rising powerhouses to ease on their throttle to stardom, and the only way we're going to stop impending disaster is by GETTING THEM ONSIDE. The math (see the very first set of figures) says we can't do it any other way. (Okay, I lie. There is one other way. KILL THEM ALL. Now I don't think anyone's got the appetite for another world war, but you know, don't say I didn't cover the other routes.) And the problem is, they see what they're doing as their ticket, except that for various reasons, we see it as their ticket to killing everyone else (or at least incredibly inconveniencing them, but killing everyone sounds more drastic, and probably more actionable) Now, for anyone who's had the unfortunate responsibility for doing just that, you'd know how difficult it is to do on a good day. If you haven't been there, I'd suggest to try mentoring some high school leavers at some point about their futures after they hatch a crazy plan. It's very instructive. Now, you have three real options. You can either apply brute force (Which is our kill them all option), or you can attempt to talk them out of it. Out of the talk them out of it option, we can either decide to try and convince them with the facts, or we can lie a little here and there and throw a bit of an emotional argument as well. ... So here we are, where the first line actually matters. We've got a scenario, where significant doubt (and I mean significant) has been cast over the process at two of the universities in play. It's difficult to not dig around and get an impression that something fishy was going on, if even only a fraction of the mail is true. (This is once again, human nature.) There's about a hundred of them involved in the research, in comparison, so it's probably (at this point) a rogue action. We can't tarnish everyone with the same brush yet. (This is by the way, the point I expect the skeptics to stop reading. Yep, I'm willing to bet that one.) However, that's if you're looking at it from the outside. Internally, the scenario may still hold. It's just politicing and people, well, being people, but at the end of the day, a couple of bad apples can't mess with your facts. (This is, by the way, where I expect a lot of Climate Change believers to stop reading. I'm willing to bet this one too.) And if you stopped reading at either of these points, you won't realise you've made an incredibly fatal mistake, in your defense (or attack) of the post, because you simply failed to acknowledge the point. What is that mistake? This is obvious - We've simply failed to take into account what the people we're ultimately trying to talk into doing something. "What do you mean?" You'll all ask, "The facts aren't in dispute!" (Funny how that statement can be said by both sides at the same time.) No, but let's look at it from the perspective of the the person we're trying to convince (or con, depending on your perspective). We've got two someones, who's going to be asked to do something which isn't in their self interest or at least it sure as hell looks like a huge step backwards at first, second and probably third glance (Although not dying as a world power is a good perk if you ask me), who have, for whatever reason, determined (quite rightfully I might add) that a lot of people have been playing politics where the facts should have been. One might say 'doctored'. Or maybe colluded with entities to present a false picture. Or even just plain out 'lied', 'cheated'. It's very difficult for ANYONE to read those emails in any real depth without walking away with the feeling there was something going on, and it wasn't strictly science. And most importantly (and remember, it doesn't matter HOW they arrive to this conclusion, and this is one of those things you learn in communication, that it doesn't even matter if they're correct) they're not completely inclined to believe the picture they were once presented. They're going to get their people to look at it. I have no doubt that entire departments in China and India have already examined the data and presented various scenarios to their governments. What I WILL guarantee will be those reports is an analysis which asks a simple question (and usually tries to answer it) and that's "Can we trust the models, the data and the analysis as given? Are they really in it for what they SAY they were, considering that there's questions about the data?" It's what's known as credibility risk, and as I said right at the beginning, this isn't about the facts. This is about the politics and the situation around them. Now one way to handle it is to exclude them and to kick them out and prove your facts differently. Pick new facts which can solidly prove your case, and once again take initiative. Another way is to try and bluster your way through, with the same facts as last time, and pretend it didn't exist. You could always flat out deny it too, and attack them for even entertaining the possibility. The last is of course, to resort to a completely new tactic. You know, like invading China. (Let me know how that last one goes. I'll just stand inside my bunker and watch with baited breath... and an underground hydroponic farm.) Personally, since we're dealing with nation states, I'm inclined to take the first one. Remember, the end objective isn't about right or wrong, it's about getting them to stop the activity that's going to kill us all. No argument will be watertight (not even this one) but taking new angles and providing new facts which you know aren't tarnished in any way would help your negotiations, as long as you acknowledged that the rogue actors were just that. Does it matter they're going to stop because they realise all the pollution is going to wipe their country out in the space of fifty years, and not because a 4C temperature gain is going to kill off about a third of the world's population due to the climate pattern changes? ... REALLY? Are you telling me your pride to 'be right' is going to be the one thing that's going to kill us all? A lot of people take the second, in the hope they're not paying attention. I'd just point out that it didn't work when your parents used it on you, what makes you think it'll work when you use it on someone else? Same for the third - with even more risk. Are we trying to piss them off and kill us all out of sheer SPITE, or trying to get a result here? The last option is actually worth considering, if there's a new approach to try. This is about results, not whose facts are better. In this scenario, the facts (literally) don't and simply CAN'T matter. But as I said, I'm a freelancer, and the only thing I profess to do decently is to have a mix of skills. And once again, as I said, the risk here isn't about if Climate Change is or isn't real - it's what the players are thinking about it, and what you have to ask them to do to stop. Not so hard until you realise them letting off that industrialization accelerator is one thing they probably don't want to do, not without damn good reason. (Comment on this)
Sunday, November 27th, 2011
2:58 am	Ah well... Everyone has a weak point somewhere. It's something you learn as you go through life, that you'll step on a button and you realise that people aren't QUITE paying attention to what you're saying. It happens to everyone, your friends, your enemies and everyone in between. It's actually fairly expected in my field - there's a point of emotional space (and it is ultimately emotional) where people think you're on the attack and not pay attention to what you're actually saying and will instead act on a persumption, based on instinct. It's usually due to the fact I rarely perfectly align up with ANYONE. I'm cautious on good events, and I'm surprisingly optimistic on bad ones. Due to the fact I fail to align with anyone over anything, when you come down to the deep core, I'm immediately rejected, simply because I ALWAYS take a slightly different alignment, and that alignment is considered adversary at that level. We all have them. Part of it is the will to win in certain arenas, and how dear we hold the topic on hand. It's probably to your benefit if you figure out WHERE they are though. Very few people do, mostly due to how caught up we are. I think I'm relatively lucky - I've always acknowledged myself as someone who doesn't know quite enough in any field (Even though others claim I've gained some sort of traction) to ever take a position where I can defend it. I can't say I know all the areas (I imagine trying to understand emotive levels is one, ironically) but I like pushing my luck. There's a couple where I might get close, but I generally get warned when I'm walking into emotional space. I normally ask people to warn me about when I walk there. I thought I'd note this. It makes a lonely road, and it means I remain a freelancer forever. (Comment on this)