An easy way to recognize shill user reviews on sites such as Metacritic, particularly in game reviews.

 Most shill reviewers post identical reviews for a game across all platform and tend to give a review with the maximum or minimum score, depending on whether they've been hired to praise a game or pan it. They tend to lack subtlety and details that truly indicate that 5hey played the game. Plus, why would anyone buy a copy for all systems, unless it's for business, especially if the game is supposed to be as bad as it can get. Shills sometimes work for competitors of the developer or publisher of the game they are reviewing. Not all are bots. Many are so desperate for money or sociopathic, making them willing to con people for a few dollars.

Catch a Hacker by the tail

Catch a Hacker by the tail,
Make him scream, make him wail.
Make him think you're really mean,
Then make a ruin of his machine.

I am seriously considering focusing my next post on the potential of a candidate running on a platform of promoting public and personal responsibility as opposed to the standard campaign of, "How can my campaign help YOU!"

Nothing further at this time.

A Little Strategy for Business, Politics, or any other field where public approval is vital.

Lately, I've been mulling over the following idea, which I recognized as a basic principle of any field where outside perceptions are critical to victory or failure. I noticed this principle while playing Texas Hold 'Em within the game Red Dead Redemption (published by Rockstar Games) on my Xbox 360 console. Big corporations or other large entities with massive amounts of liquid capital are in the same position as a gambler playing Texas Hold 'Em who possesses a large purse with which to place bets throughout the game. Essentially, anyone in such a position has the ability to win without a winning hand, simply by bluffing consistently, confidently, and patiently enough to both drive up the Pot, while also eventually driving all other competition to fold, either out of fear of losing or because they can no longer afford to remain in the game. Having driven up the Pot slowly, the other players stayed in the game long enough to at least contribute resources of their own to the Pot which ends up as the winnings of the protagonist of my hypothetical card game scenario. If the protagonist appears too confident in his hand prematurely, the other players will fold before contributing to the Pot, resulting in little or no winnings beyond the contributions of the protagonist and the entry fees for each game, making the effort less productive while also increasing risk for the protagonist if another player has an excellent hand. This translates into business and politics in a similar fashion - the better funded organizations with highly liquid capital have a cushion which enhances their ability to demonstrate resolve in the face of opposition, regardless of how bad their playbooks (the equivalent of their hands) really are, driving smaller business to use up their own capital while the bigger players can remain cozy in their own positions. Which makes modern business and government influence more of a game about influencing perception of your ability to succeed than about any other strategy, including issues, ethics, hard work, or anything else. Sure, there is always a small chance that someone else focusing on a winning hand playing on one or more of these factors can still beat them, but the probability is incredibly small that they will even be able to gain such a hand, let alone often enough to keep on beating the bigger players. So politics and business in this period of time is largely driven by money and marketing, creating a drastically lopsided playing field.

What I find wrong with how President Obama is making his policies.

Why do we need big omnibus bill packages in order to improve the government? As much as I dislike the results of Newt Gingrich's legislative efforts in the '90s, he was very effective in getting them passed. His vitriolic public speeches were not the actual key to his success, which lay in the conciseness and brevity of each bill. Only what was necessary to accomplish the intended goal was included, resulting in a record flurry of legislative victories for him and his allies. So, I plead with anyone reading this who has the ear of President Obama and the key legislative leaders, that those in such a position pass this idea along. The reason the Tea Party and others have been so opposed and so successful in blocking what they have blocked, even if the legislation eventually passed, is because no one likes to be given a huge document which has to be read in a very short time, followed by a definitive vote for or against enacting the contents of that document as law.

Why I dislike the idea that one should "Live in the moment".

The phrase above implies (and is intended very much to do so) that we, even as sentient or sapient creatures, should ignore the past and ignore the future. Recently, however, there have been studies that have confirmed my long-held belief that people who plan for the future are much more likely to live longer, happier, and more productive lives than those who think only of the present. Also, it is important to remember that "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"- as originally stated by George Santayana. Another great quotation on this subject is "Failing to plan is planning to fail" - Tom Harvey. I myself have written that, "Without a plan, we are doomed to fail".

Another thing that people who try to cheer people up by telling them to "live in the moment" need to realize is that those people they are trying to help are probably already doing so and that is why they are suffering. Instead of thinking themselves out of their problems, they are thinking themselves into the very situation they desire relief from, so such advice actually ends up being cruel in it's result, if not in it's intent, and completely unhelpful. It sounds good to all the modern followers of pop-psychology, but is otherwise useless for healing emotional pain. If you just think back through your own life, I'm sure that you could easily find many moments that if you foolishly allowed yourself to "live in these moments, without thought of the future" you would likely want to desperately try by any means to end the misery that you would be feeling, which is actually not what a true healer should desire for a patient to want. Healers, doctors, physicians, (whatever you choose to call them) are supposed to "first do no harm, unless harm is necessary to preserve the greater good". - Hippocratic Oath. Healers are supposed to be providing real solutions to people's problems, not band-aid solutions or Final Solutions.

A review of the television series, Stargate Universe

I just finished watching a few hours of the marathon recap before tonight's season premiere, having attempted to catch this show before. I find it always to be disheartening to see producers say they are going for "darker, more mature" and end up with melancholy combined with juvenile. If  you look at why things are so bad for the characters in the show, (1) every disaster is completely contrived; (2) the commander is a terrible, morale-depressing "leader" (more fitting all the traits of the negative elements within military command), who also lacks decisiveness and intelligence (You have to be smart to be a real Colonel!).

And, no-one should be in the cast simply because they make good eye candy. Just because this is a TV show is no excuse for pandering to baser emotion, especially when this doesn't fit with the concept for the show. This is not mature. This is American Pie material.

Regarding Blue and Carlyle's characters, they are the only interesting characters, but they fit more into standard charicatures of brainy types, rather than being truly representative of gamers or scientists, including the brilliant ones. I'm part of the gaming culture, I understand most science and I have seen biographies of many famous scientific personalities on television and video. The best in both categories fit more into the appearance and style of the general culture than what's typically represented.

The rest of the characters, including the character of Lt. Smith are just boring. MSgt. Greer appears to be typical of stereotypes of Blacks in the Military as portrayed in so much of television (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, and Mass Effect 1 and 2 have much better portrayals of smart, thoughtful, strong Black characters.) Lou Diamond Phillips character, while seeming to be the only truly intelligent military character is still portrayed as the raspy, old-timer type of General. And come on, since when can a Military Officer just "quit" their essential job in the middle of a crisis like Lt. Johannsen's character did early on? The only intelligent portrayal by a female was Ming-Na's discussion with the commander about the lottery, which he responded to with a perfunctory, arbitrary reaction.