by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

Some of us remember the 1970s. At least, vaguely we might. Being a child of the 70s, I remember the times as being good. Cars were huge and roomy, the hair bands that ruined heavy metal hadn’t started yet, and you could still look under the hood of the car with your dad and name the dozen or so parts visible on the engine with certainty.

My how times have changed. Today, nobody rebuilds carburetors, driveway oil changes are unusual, and cars are tiny with a lot more electronics than steel. The land yacht whose safety relied on sheer size and mass has been replaced by air bags and collision sensors.

Of course, some of these things are good. Cars today get more than double the mileage their 1970s counterparts did. But who can deny the sheer opulence of the 1977 Lincoln Continental Mark V with its affluent, efficiency-mocking 7mpg?

Luxury in the 70s was all about trim levels. The up-fit models had some of the most sumptuous additions available on cars before or since. Sometimes, I wish some of those would come back. Here are my favorites:

Pillow-topped Seats
Today, cars generally feature seating that is stiff and bucket-shaped. Sure, it’s comfortable, but only just so. We pillow-top our mattresses, couches, and office chairs. Yet we leave our automobiles with what amounts to carved rocks for seating. Bring back the pillow top so we can snooze at long lights again!

Limousine Windows and Lights
Called “opera” windows and lights, these were the little touches added to coupes and sedans to hint at their luxurious limousine-like interiors. It let the world know that you weren’t driving just any standard Buick. Nope, it’s the luxury model!

Big Hood Ornaments
Ya, they’re aerodynamically unsound, but big hood ornaments were awesome. In fact, they were so cool that some after-market kits allowed you to make them removable (like the face-plate stereos of the 1990s) so that hoodlums wouldn’t steal them to make necklaces. Some were so theft-proof, you could tie a tow strap to them and pull the car to the garage if you needed to.

Cool Trim Titles
Remember when trim designations were more than just a letter or number? Today, it’s the “5″ or the “M” that says it’s the “upfit” model. Back in the day, though, it was the “d’Elegance” (not just elegance, but French elegance, damn you) and the “Regency” (GM had a special flair for coming up with these titles). When you told your friends that you’d bought a new Cadillac, you could say it was the “Seville Elegante” to make sure they knew that you got the primo package for ultimate opulence.

Wood
Remember when cars had wood (or at least faux wood) on them? Even the lamest of mobiles could be upgraded to bitchin-ness with a little plastified wood. Questionable automobile choices like the Ranchero looked less so when you added the faux wood treatment with its ultra-tacky borders. Of course, the ultimate in wood treatments were the station wagons of the day. No family land yacht that seated 100 was complete without backward-facing seats and faux wood paneling and dash treatments. With a million horses under the hood, all that wood around the car, and a suspension that made the term “body roll” mean something akin to ocean going liners.. those were the heyday of family vacations on the road.

Bring these features back, I say! Sure, the flecked paint and chromed plastic on the newest line of today’s luxury cars might be great and all, but unless they throw on some faux wood paneling, add in pillow-top seats, put on some Opera lighting and windows, attach a big royal crest-appearing ornament on front, and call it the “d’Awesome Gucci Ninety-Eight”, I’m not buying.

by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

Specifically, it will be the Citroen DS5 hybrid hatchback and the future French president, Francois Hollande, will cruise it down the Champs-Elysees when current President Sarkozy hands over the reins of power.

Hollande (whose very name denotes a non-French country, by the way), is the Socialist candidate who beat out the competition in France’s elections. He will decide a lot of things, including foreign policies, righting France’s current economic woes (likely the political driving point which got him the popular vote as a Socialist), and what kind of car he will show up to it all in.

His choice is the functionally beautiful Citroen DS5 diesel-electric hybrid hatchback. It’s also a direct thumbing of the nose to America, which is a favorite French passtime.

While pundits on both sides of the isle-that-isn’t argue over whether Obama is a socialist and whether or not this action by a bonafied, capital-S Socialist in France proves or disproves that point, they’ll be missing the larger picture. That being that those baguette eaters who pride themselves for a glorified lightning rod landmark are really just saying “We are still better than you unsophisticated Americaaans” in their nasal accents.

Foreign relations will suffer. Expect nothing less than drone strikes on the Citroen factory and for Obama to swap out the tires on the Presidential Limousine in favor of a monster truck retrofit. It’s only logical, since he has to show strength before the November elections. If he’s seen as being “soft on France,” he’ll be sunk.

It will go down in history as the French Hybrid Crisis with the Citroen DS5 hatchback diesel-electric hybrid forever being known as the car that nearly started World War Three. In ten years, Leonardo DiCaprio will play the French President-elect in the Hollywood (semi) historical drama of these events. Hopefully they’ll find a good actor to play Obama. Come to think of it, he’ll be free to take the role himself, flexing his acting muscles a bit reprising an older role. Will Farrell could play Mitt Romney, but, of course, they’ll have to CGI in the dog on top of the station wagon so no animals are harmed during the filming.

You heard it here, folks.

In my last article, I revealed that the Social Security System has been implemented in over 130 countries, that it is run by the United Nations and World Bank, and that it was created by the League of Nations 8 years before it was implemented in the United States. I then referred to this system and the Social Security number as the precursor to the Number of the Mark of the Beast.

Link here

Surprised by the response, I was truly disappointed at the comments left by readers. I found the rigidness of their religious dogma disturbing to say the least, literally bypassing the facts presented in lieu of correcting biblical citations and interpretations. And thus, I started thinking about how religion often takes people away from not only knowledge itself – but from God Himself; how the legal system takes the simplicity out of God’s law to do no harm; how corporations like pharmaceuticals take God’s natural healing out of medicine; and – depending on which of the over 1,000 one true religions they are a member of – how similar the joining of a religion is to the joining of a political party. And so I came up with the following list…

?

Religion and Political Parties
What’s the Difference?

?

Both start out with a corporate charter of beliefs by the leaders of that religion or political party.

These charters and beliefs are claimed by both entities to be divinely inspired.

Both change these charters and beliefs as times change, as technology improves, as law requires it, and as opposing knowledge and books become more accessible to the public at large.

Both are registered with the State via their Articles of Incorporation.

Both write and re-write history; and then edit and interpret their own writings.

They are both a form of control, both in political and moralcorrectness.

Members of both fear excommunication and public ridicule for questioning or acting against these chartered beliefs.

Political parties make the laws of the land and command consent, while religions teach that members must follow the “law of the land” as God commands.

Both give power to otherwise powerless men, who dress in robes and judge all people.

Political parties call law the Bible. Religions call the Bible the law.

Both must swear upon and to the bible (God) before giving testimony.

Both project a public persona that each is separate from the other…

Yet both are hopelessly intertwined.

You must be registered to both to be a member…

If you are not registered to both, your voice doesn’t count and your vote is not counted.

You are allowed to change political parties or religions at any time – as long as you are in one of them and aren’t thinking for yourself.

Both claim to be transparent and honest, doing their deeds in the light…

Yet both are well known to hide some of their deeds in the dark; without disclosure, and even against the very ethics they set for themselves.

Both claim to be non-profit…

And both avoid taxes on their for-profit ventures.

One allows atonement of sin through faith, followed by probationary good behavior…

The other allows atonement of sin through prison (or execution), followed by probationary good behavior…

And both offer these atoning people free bibles and religious last rights.

Both include many minority races and creeds…

And both focus those cultural differences into one divinely inspired political focus – to the detriment of any minorities who won’t consent or believe.

Both are non-governmental corporations that heavily influence government and politics.

Both have a list of ten things for which many of their beliefs are influenced in a major way…

Both preach these rights, ethics, morals, and family values virtually non-stop…

Both continuously break their promises to uphold these or live by example.

Both have been caught many times over in pedophilia related activities…

Both are very protective of this fact and the people involved in these activities…

Both have public relations officers to handle the public’s outrage at these actions so as to ensure the continuity of the corporation…

And both are protected from these crimes and from any major public scrutiny or punishment by the court system (BAR) and in the mainstream media (Public Opinion).

Both are the subjects of countless jokes made in poor taste.

Both rely on the ignorance of their members with regards to their business related and political activities…

And both despise watch-dog groups.

Both accept and rely on donations.

Both have leaders that wear expensive suits and receive very good pensions.

Both promise hope and change to the poor and working class, but never quite deliver.

Both offer a welfare system that’s never quite enough to really make a difference in society… other than to maintain the poverty level.

“In God We Trust” is the credo of both – after all, it says so on the thing they both worship the most.

Both have national and international rules and codes…

Both have members who do not question these rules or their leaders for fear of public ostracizing and ridicule.

Both have a healthy fear of some of the other well-connected-to-each-other members.

Both adhere to strict political correctness in public…

Yet both talk badly about other members behind their backs, and sometimes even in public forums or elections.

Both affect the lives of every person in the world… whether those people are members or not.

Both claim that they know what is best for We, the People.

Both declare that they are the one true and only way to salvation…

Both promise this eventual salvation from tyranny and evil – if only their members will have faith in them and wait patiently, for long enough…

Of course, both have been making this promise for many, many, many generations.

Both blame every other political party or religion for all of the problems in the world.

Both influence and help to define and legislate the legal definition of marriage…

Both cooperate and promote marriage as a legally binding contract where the State is the third party and legal owner of the fruits (children) of that marriage…

And both veil this legal contract in God’s will and blessing; providing marriage “ceremonies” and “services”.

Both claim that the constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, despite the opposite opinions of the personal writings of many of the founding fathers (prophets) that signed it.

Sadly, both believe and falsely preach that the right to congregate in public and worship comes from the constitution and “Bill Of Rights” instead of from God Himself.

Both are effusively and irrevocably supportive of the illegal “State” of Israel.

Both define Jews as the chosen people.

Both are more afraid of AIPAC and the ADL than of the devil himself.

Both are heavily influenced by the United Nations.

The CIA and other government agencies have infiltrated both.

Government regulates both.

And yet both pay little or no taxes to government.

—?—

And after all of this… do you still wonder who came up with the
rule that you shouldn’t discuss religion or politics in mixed company?

—?—

Next article: Priests And Politicians: Is There A Difference?

by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

In Washington, rhetoric is the name of the game. If your quoted blurb is better than your opponents’, you win the day – whether facts are on your side or not. In fact, the side that has to “explain” the facts is likely to lose, so you always want to be the one forcing the other guy to explain.

The more unknown, but bad-sounding the label you can stick to your opponent or their industry, the better. Ever since the Federalists won out over the Anti-Federalists thanks in no small part to the names they were able to get labeled with, politics in this country has revolved around name calling. Had the anti-federalist been called “Freedom-Lovers” or “Libertarians” then history might have been different.

So it goes today. Nothing is better for politicians than a crisis (contrived or real) that they can twist to their advantage. The price of gasoline has been a favorite subject for decades, with everyone trying to force the issue and give it the labels they want. Alluding to “Big Oil” is always a favorite tactic, as is “economic choking” and comments about “lifeblood.”

Lately, however, the new thing is to bring out a very old term with a lot of negative baggage and throw it at the public in such a way that it can be stuck onto some of the things we’ve been told to hate. Oil “speculators” are labeled with a spit and insinuated to be in alignment with Big Oil and all of the evils it’s been saddled with. To be an “oil speculator” is, according to the rhetoric, how you get insane profits by screwing over the American people because you want oil (and thus gasoline) prices to skyrocket so you can buy low and sell high.

As with all great lies, this one is told based on a kernel of truth. Add on the bicycle pump and start filling it up with hot air, though, and it becomes something entirely different, retaining only the veneer of the original, but being pumped up to incredible proportions.

Here’s the rub: chances are you yourself or someone you know, maybe even a family member or close friend or neighbor, is one of these “oil speculators.”

This new name that President Obama conjured up and that has been gaining ground in media is really just for those who participate in oil futures. Many people with a retirement fund, such as a 401k, or similar investment portfolio are probably sometime oil speculators. It’s one of many commodities that portfolio managers like to buy and sell as part of their attempt to average out ahead of the game to keep their clients’ investments profitable.

The way oil futures work (or any other commodities future, for that matter) is simple. Two types of people are in the game: those who only buy promises to own the commodity when it’s ready and those who actually want to own the goods when they’re ready for delivery. Oil is no different than corn, gold, pork, or rubber for car tires. People buy and sell it every day and, in the case of futures, they buy and sell an item that doesn’t exist yet, but is promised to be delivered when it does. In other words, when you buy corn futures, you’re expecting a farmer to grow it and give it to you just as when you buy oil, you’re expecting the owner of the oil rig to pump and deliver that amount of oil. The producer gets the security of money up front.

The idea for the buyer is to purchase at today’s prices and then either sell the rights to it before delivery (that’s the “speculating” bit) or wait for delivery and hope you got a good deal. Refineries, for instance, buy oil this way all the time, purchasing it months ahead of their actual need so that it shows up when they’re running out of what they’ve currently got.

The problem is, as with any future, you’re “speculating” that it will be worth more than you paid when it is actually ready for delivery – or at some point in between your purchase and that delivery. Investors will sell when that happens, making money in the process. But there’s risk, just like any investment. Oil is just another commodity, it doesn’t always rise in price. Recently it took a dip, in fact, and many of these so-called “speculators” lost out and sold their futures for fear that the dip would remain until the point of delivery. That part usually gets left out of the rhetoric, of course.

Futures are like any other investment opportunity. Even oil barons like the Hunt Brothers or current media whipping posts the Koch family, have lost big-time in commodities futures. It happens to everyone. Want another secret? Even media darling Warren Buffet is an oil speculator. Shocking isn’t it? He’s not alone. Most of the people who’ve at least pretended to be against “speculation” are, in fact, speculators.

And chances are, if you have a mutual fund or a 401k, you are probably sometimes guilty of “speculating” on oil too. How does it feel to be Dr. Evil?

The entertainment industry, of which gaming is a part, has been embroiled in a philosophical conundrum for some time.  Most in the industry, especially in the music and film markets, have been adamantly anti-piracy and have pushed laws and lawsuits to the extreme in some cases as they attempt to stop pirates at all cost.

The gaming industry is not so united.  Those in the industry who have weighed in on the subject have been harshly criticized by those on the other side of the argument.

The fundamental arguments in piracy are whether intellectual rights are important enough that we’ll sacrifice other rights in order to facilitate their protection.  For example, is my ownership of this article important enough to me that those reading this should allow me to snoop into their computers to make sure they aren’t illegally sharing this article with friends or family?  Or using it in their own self-published newsletters without my consent?  Should I have the power to enforce my intellectual copyrights with abandon?

At the core of it, this is the question being asked when we look at piracy and anti-piracy laws.  Nearly everyone would agree that if you work to create something or work to acquire something, you have a right to own that thing.  For example, my writing of this 1,500 or so words took time, skill, and effort.  Therefore, I have a right to ownership over the content I’ve created.  I then sold parts of this right to Killer Guides in return for payment, which I will then turn into other goods or services over which I will then also have ownership.

When we sit down and philosophize about how we interact with one another as humans, it always comes down to a series of transactions like this wherein each of us trades something for something else.  That trade can be a tangible or intangible item.  Sometimes we trade our time, friendship, goodwill, or even portions of our freedom for something we perceive as valuable enough to do so.  Every human transaction from buying and selling goods to making bonds of marriage or friendship are trades of this sort.

The goal of societies is to create trade balances so that no one can overpower another and take something from them by force but still allow those who have had their items stolen compensated fairly to make up for the theft.  These are what laws are all about, really.  It’s when we start to consider one person’s item or one particular type of item (be it tangible or not) as more important than others that we start to see an imbalance that creates injustice.

So the question of piracy is deeply philosophical: do property owners have the right to trump other’s rights in pursuit of justice when they believe their own rights of ownership have been violated?

The industry largely seems to think that it should and is working daily to enforce this kind of paradigm.  They see all piracy as loss for themselves, but it could be argued that piracy is not always a loss to the creator.  Going back to my writing content for Killer Guides, we can see that if someone steals this article and reprints it on their website, both I and KG have had our rights to ownership over it stolen, since we didn’t consent to the re-printing.  However, because this content has been spread onto another site and therefore reached new readers, it will also boost our own readership intangibly through putting our names in front of a wider audience. (Note: if you do copy this, please link back. Thanks)

With games, it is likely the same.  If a person makes a copy of a game and gives it to their friend, that game has been stolen.  The new player, however, may really enjoy the game and tell other friends about it.  If the game is good enough, many of those players will turn into customers who purchase the game.  Years ago when games were distributed on 5-1/4? and 3-1/2? floppy disks, I did this regularly.  It was illegal, but it was also considered normal.  If the game sucked, I would erase it and use the disk for something else.  If it was a fun game, I’d likely buy it or its sequel(s) to continue playing.

Today, of course, massive multiplayer online (MMO) games are largely converting to Free to Play (F2P) models which, in essence, are this same idea.  You try the game for a while and if you like it, you’ll start spending money on it to make it more fun for yourself.  We used to call this “shareware.”

Stardock CEO Brad Wardell seems to agree with this idea.  In the February edition of Stardock Magazine, he says:

“When Stardock was running Impulse, we got to hear a lot from companies regarding to their feelings [sic] towards software piracy. In many cases, it was clear that the motivation to stop piracy was less about maximizing sales and more about preventing people who didn’t pay for the game from playing it.  I felt this was misguided.

“When I see our games pirated, it definitely annoys me… at the same time, the response to piracy should be, to paraphrase The Godfather, ‘just business.’  Simply put, the goal should be to maximize sales, not worry about people who wouldn’t buy your game in the first place.  I’ve said this in the past but until we were digitally distributing third party games, I didn’t realize how prevalent the ‘stop those pirates’ philosophy was.”

Wardell then goes on to point out the two types of pirates I’ve just alluded to in my examples above: those who will steal regardless and those who steal to try before they buy.  The goal of a game maker should be to get those who “try before..” to buy.  You do this by making good games that people want to play, not by rushing to court every time you think your game’s been stolen.

The parallels in other markets to what Wardell refers to as the “stop those pirates” mentality are obvious.  We see everyone from governments to religions to everyday people on the street using this mentality to blindly strike forth at their perceived enemies, wasting themselves in the process.  Governments lose the will of their people, religions lose followers, and individuals lose credibility when they approach things with this attitude for too long.

Like most players, I’ve signed up for or purchased a boxed or online game only to be disappointed and then angry that I couldn’t return it or otherwise get my money back because the game was nothing like advertised.  Every one of us can recall horrible games we’ve spent $10, $20, $30 or more on only to find out that the developer obviously spent more time on box design than on actual game design.  As a gamer, I did not wantonly sue or demand recompense from those shyster developers.

Yet it seems that many game developers now aren’t willing to act that way in return.  For example, I’ve purchased plenty of Sony games that were, in my mind, crap, but if I were to demand recompense, at most I’d get the money I’d spent on it back.  Yet were I to illegally copy a Sony game, it’s likely they’d want thousands of dollars more than the purchase price in recompense for that.  Sony isn’t the only one either.

Worse yet, when any of us buys, downloads, installs, or otherwise interacts with software (games) from many of these development houses, we electronically agree to contracts that allow them to monitor us in any number of privacy-robbing ways.  Most of us aren’t even aware that it’s happening.

Try unplugging your Internet connection and playing some of your favorite new (offline) games and see what happens.  You’ll likely start seeing popups requesting online access and some games won’t work at all offline, even though they aren’t online games.

It seems that MMOs have largely either gotten the picture or are mostly immune from piracy.  I’d wager it’s a mixture of both.  The MMO has advantages over traditional boxed games in regards to piracy enforcement and with most massives going to F2P models so that players can legally play for free, it’s becoming obvious that allowing piracy (as it were) is actually better for business.

In short, blindly going after pirates large and small seems to be a pointless waste of energy and resources.  That energy and those resources would be put to much wiser use bettering and improving games so that people will want to own them.  As Wardell said: “the goal should be to maximize sales, not worry about people who wouldn’t buy the game in the first place.”

by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

Admit it, you found that joke funny. Most people would not associate NASCAR with the Democratic National Convention. Democrats are, shall we say, not generally considered the auto racing sport’s demographic. This should have been proven with finality when First Lady Michelle Obama was booed at a NASCAR event in Florida last year.

In a place like North Carolina, where this year’s Democratic National Convention will be held, stereotypes are left for less chic states like South Carolina. It turns out that registered Democrat, International Motorsports Hall of Fame member, and general manager of NASCAR’s Charlotte Motor Speedway, Howard “Humpy” Wheeler, Jr. happens to be supporting the convention with something unique. A car.

Not just any car, but a NASCAR stock car that’s ready for action. The car is “Powered by the American People” and will be emblazoned with the names of every person who donates $5 or more to the convention’s strongbox. The 2012 Democratic Convention is (hoped) to be funded entirely by grassroots donations from Democrats around the country, with no special interest, corporate, or lobbyist money included. The reader can decide if they believe that.

Still, this is way cooler than anything the Republican National Convention has come up with so far. That will be held in Tampa, Florida, which is just a hop, skip and a jump from the NASCAR mecca of Daytona Beach. The two convention locations are, however, roughly equidistant from Talladega, Alabama – something not lost on some researchers, who’ll also note that connecting the three makes a near-perfect right triangle on Google Maps.

The Republicans, for their part, are still looking for a candidate, though the field has been narrowed to only three with MItt Romney leading the pack – but with Dr. Ron Paul and pundit Newt Gingrich continuing to put up a fight. The Democrats, meanwhile, are basically decided on Obama, who will be looking for a second term as president. So it’s no wonder the GOP has not yet come up with a cool marketing scheme for their convention – it’s hard to put together something like a NASCAR stock car with a candidate’s logo on it if you aren’t sure who the candidate will be. Right?

So if you’re not an Obama supporter, not a Democrat, or just not interested in politics, maybe you should be. After all, they’re sporting the power of NASCAR now. Plus, who wouldn’t want their name emblazoned on a NASCAR? I predict that thousands of on-the-fence Republican NASCAR supporters are about to change sides and millions of Democrats who up until now snobbishly looked down on stock car racing will suddenly change their tune – at least until November.

For most of us, online role playing games (RPGs) have largely or entirely replaced face-to-face “dice off” games like Dungeons & Dragons and Palladium Fantasy.  Busy lives and the fact that playing online is just easier and can be done more often has taken its toll on the old group gathering games.

It’s another story of technology replacing something personal to many of our lives.

But is it better?

The Up-side to Offline Gaming

Playing face-to-face, offline, has a lot going for it.  It’s more personal, as you’re meeting friends personally and talking and hanging out before, after and sometimes during the game.

Real life games also tend to be more fantastic in terms of actual role playing and character development.  Since the visualization is entirely in the players’ heads, these characters can be anything.

The game play is generally more fast-and-loose since the rules are subjective to the game lead (usually called a Dungeon Master or Game Master), who is generally free to alter or temporarily suspend rules in order to make for a better story or more interesting adventure.

Players too can do things that a DM might not expect, thus throwing the rules back into his/her face and changing the story being told in unexpected (and usually fun) ways.

The Up-side to Online Gaming

Online game play, too, has its advantages.  The first is that it’s easier to get into the game whenever you’d like (just log in) and play can last for a small amount of time or all day, depending on your schedule.  There are almost no logistics involved in getting into the game to play as no meeting place, announcements to players, etc. really need to be done.

Online play is also faster to get involved in, since you don’t have to meet someone or get invited somewhere, you can just buy or download the title and start playing.  This has meant that a lot of gamers who might not otherwise have ever gotten into RPG are now doing it.

The Down-sides

What has been said so far should have given you an idea of what the downers are to each of these game types.  To summarize: in-person play has a lot of logistical problems involved and requires regular scheduling and getting together, making it harder to play more regularly.

Online gaming has issues with the amount of role playing that’s actually possible, the rigidity of the game rules and structure, as well as its content.

So each choice has its ups and downs.

So which is better then?

The answer to this will depend on who you ask.  Personally, I think that in-person gaming is a lot more fun.  You get to hang out with people – some of my oldest friends are those I played RPG with, in fact – and spend time in each other’s imaginations.

Every character I remember fondly was a product of in-person RPG.  My frist character ever was AiDok the Elf from the original D&D pamphlet edition when I was in college.  There was Ombi, a Fighter-Thief Dwarf from 1st edition Dungeons & Dragons who was basically a walking curse, covered in blue fur and with a lot of attitude.  Of course, I can’t forget Groont from Palladium Fantasy, an Ogre Gladiator who pined for being something more thanks to his relatively high intelligence (an Ogre with an IQ of 150 is a real oddity).  Plus, as a fighting class, he was mostly just a meat shield since he couldn’t hit a barn door with a pointy stick at two feet of distance..

Those are the characters I remember fondly.  I have a little attachment to Glowvrn, my Dwarf Guardian in Lord of the Rings Online, and perhaps to one or two others from online gaming.  Oddly enough, I also have a fondness for my School Bus in World of Tanks.*

Still, these are nowhere near as powerful as my offline RPG characters have been to me.  So, to me at least, playing face-to-face is a much more rewarding and fun experience.  I’ve played all four editions of Dungeons & Dragons, Palladium Fantasy, and a few made-up games like Ganglands and 6-sided MadeThisUpCuzItsAllWeHave RPG.  Don’t look for those last two in stores.. you won’t find them in the way I played and GM’d them.

Turning the other way, however, my younger sister is all about online gaming.  She plays EverQuest 2 now, played EQ1 originally, and has played other games as well.  Other friends I used to RPG with face-to-face have also gone online to play WOW, LOTRO, and others.  In fact, I got into LOTRO because my friend Niel, who I met playing face-to-face, was playing it and told me I should try it out.

Truthfully, I haven’t played a face-to-face RPG in a very long time.  Years.  I can’t name very many people who have, honestly.  The old troupe I used to get together with back in the day is all split up and spread out around the U.S.  Which is probably why most of them are online now too.

I sincerely miss those old days of getting together in the living room of my friend Dan’s house and playing 1st edition with lawyer-turned-DM Steven while friends like Rob and Kevin came up with engineering feats to throw dice* or use their PDAs to enhance the game for themselves.

I really miss sitting in a smoke-filled garage, drinking beer with friends while we played Palladium and people like Taka and Zach argued game rules as the rest of us looked at Neil to play “Guess this week’s injury.”

*For those who don’t know, I no longer have an active account in LOTRO and a “school bus” in WoT refers to a Russian SU-14 SPG.  Kevin actually used a Lego Robotics set to build an “automated” dice thrower.

Wait.. that didn’t answer the question.

Of course not.  Saying definitively one way or the other would just start a  flame war as religious zealots from every online and offline gaming system imaginable show up to claim their game is the best and then shout “n00b” at everyone else.

Besides, the answer is personal to each and every gamer, whether online or not, and so it can’t be delivered here.  Both types of games have their good and bad points and players know this.

While I personally prefer offline, face-to-face play, I haven’t done so in years and am actively playing online games currently and have been for some time.  I still pine after the “good old days” of RPG, but realize that things move on and lives change.  I’m no longer in a position to play them.

Luckily, I’ve kept all my 2ed D&D and Palladium books.. so when my kids get old enough..

CODA Automotive has announced that they’re abandoning plans to build a lithium-ion battery factory in Columbus, Ohio.  This because long delays have made it clear that the Department of Energy (DOE) will not likely act on their $500-million loan application for the project.

The Columbus Dispatch blames the issue on the DOE, the administration, and politics.

Since Coda applied for the loan, the Department of Energy has come under fire for its loan to Solyndra, a maker of solar panels that later went bankrupt, and for aid to other electric car companies. Amid this criticism, the agency has made almost no new loans, and some lawmakers have called for changes to the programs.

…Coda leaders said in recent months that they remained hopeful about the loan, but that they had developed a business plan that would work without the Ohio plant.

Interesting.  One commenter on GreenCarCongress said, apparently without seeing the humor in his hypocrisy, that:

“It seems the Solyndra debacle has stopped all government support through the loan programs. If we’re ever going to make progress we’re going to have to limit the ridiculous politicization of our energy policy. The purpose of loans and loan guarentees is to support possible future technology (that would have general societal benefits) while limiting or mitigating the risks associated with direct support.”

If you can’t see the hilarious problem with Brotherkenny4?s statement, you’d make a great political candidate. Solyndra was a huge failure primarily because it accepted government loans and then promptly defaulted on them, meaning the “mitigation” of the risks was non-existent.  The taxpayer funded Solyndra as if it were a grant, the company just had to go through a few hoops to make it so.

Closer to reality, another commenter on GCC, Anne, spelled it out simply:

“Good business decision.

For a small company like Coda, having their own battery plant would be a huge burden. It is much cheaper less risky to source them from a supplier with years or decades of experience.

Tesla doesn’t have its own battery factory, they buy them from Panasonic. Fisker buys them from A123, etc.”

Of course, that kind of logic can’t stop the political partisanship and claims of government excellence in all things business:

“The Republican plan to undermine the US economy continues to bear fruit. The entire Solyndra controversy is part of that strategy – 250 fewer Americans with jobs is a good thing, in their eyes.

And the Energy Loans program continues to wither, even though it’s success/failure rate is better than the private sector’s rate.”

This, of course, is qualified by a source that is none other than..

“That information is available from the government online.”

HAHAHAHA

In the end, the answer is pretty clear: CODA hoped to get the U.S. government involved in its business by applying for a loan, just as it did when it got loans from the Chinese government for CODA’s operations there.  Those USG loans appear to be falling through, so the company is proceeding with Plan B.

Seems to me that CODA is run by some intelligent people.  They’re ready for contingencies and exploring all options.  As they should.  Sadly, too many of those options for any business today are to beg government for handouts (er.. “loans”).

by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

It’s only recently that major manufacturers have gotten into making electric cars for the masses. Up to this point, it’s mainly been the realm of small companies and garage tinkerers. These hackers have created some awesome EVs that ply the streets of the world in silence as their electrons flow through wires, emitting no tailpipe emissions.

Once the mainstream gets involved, however, so does government. Now, it’s virtually mandatory that all electric vehicles like the Chevrolet Volt and Ford Focus Electric have sounds that emit when driving in low-speed situations where hitting pedestrians may become likely. A lot of contention in the industry has been had over these sounds.

Not to worry. Don’t like the spacey noises coming from your Volt? Not impressed by the goofy swooshing your Leaf makes? Have no fear, hackers are here!

Were we to hack our EV’s external sound alert system, here’s our top choices for sound replacements.

#10 – Bill & Ted on Guitar
Pedalludy Louiiieiiuuuu! Nothing is as bodacious as the air guitar sound from Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure. Gnarly.

#9 – The Jetsons’ Family Car
Of course, every list of this type has to include the Jetsons. Pbbbbbbbbbbbbwwwwt.

#8 – Backfiring Jalopy
Obviously, if you’re going to have an ultra-modern, futuristic electric car, then the ultimate irony would be if it sounds like a puttering jalopy. Am I right?

#7 – Nitro-Burning Funny Car
Or, even sweeter irony, if your silent future car were to sound like the loudest, most obnoxious petroleum-burning vehicle available.. like maybe a nitro-burning funny car? It’s just fun to say. Nitro-burnin funny car.. use your deep voice with a lot of excitement. It makes for dramatic commercials. Note the gas mask in the background for this one:

#6 – WWII Aircraft
Looking to get a little more vintage? How about going with a warplane from World War II? That vintage enough for ya?

#5 – Tie-Fighter w/ R2D2
Sci-fi is where it’s at with electric cars of the future. Right? So the obvious answer would be to include some Star Wars options, the coolest being the Tie-Fighter, which has the coolest sounds of any of the vehicles in the movie. Throw in some R2D2 so everyone knows what it is and you’re good to go. Bet you didn’t know the Terminator stole his line from Vader..

#4 – Star Trek Warp
Of course, for the more modern, grown up hacker nerd, Star Wars is too campy. So we give you.. Star Trek, which is much more grown up. Except maybe for the Tribbles. Take your pick from these and Engage!

#3 – Darth Vader
But wait.. Star Wars isn’t down and out yet. It comes back with the ultimate in creepiness, sure to have all of those lame pedestrians backing away in fear.. Darth Vader.. breathing. Uoooo psssshht Uoooo pssshhht

#2 – Explosions
Obviously, if all that sci-fi crap is too nerdy for you, then you’ll want something to make things a little more.. explosive. Bust out the ordinance and load up your EV with a whole theme song made entirely of explosions! Boooya!

#1 – The A-Team Theme
To really make your electric ride totally bad donkey, you’ll need something extraordinary. So, from the greatest TV show of all time, I bring you the introduction that made television history and changed the world as we know it. I pity the fool that don’t like the A-Team!

Special bonus! Don’t forget the “adult themed film” music!

‘Cause nothing says “classy EV” like some ’70s swank. Ooooooh yeaaaaahhh.