Sony and The Unfinished Swan

So for this week, I'd like to talk about this CNN article titled "Indie video games get help from a 'big brother'". The general premise of the article is that Sony (makers of the PS3, one of the three major current generation video game consoles), is getting behind a tiny indie group called Giant Sparrow. Giant Sparrow plans on making a game called The Unfinished Swan where you start in a perfectly blank world and use the various buttons to paint the world behind you to reveal the background, which definitely sounds cool, but I'd like to focus more on that first part: Sony is backing them.

Now, reading this article is interesting for a lot of reasons. First off, I never knew that Sony also backed thatgamecompany, who made Flower and Journey. Both of those are widely lauded as some of the best indie games on the system, and that's not just because Sony backed them. They're good. Seriously. Check them out. (Flower is one of my favorites because it's one of very few experiences I've ever had where not a single word was ever spoken yet it still made me cry).

Second, I find it really interesting to believe that Sony is giving money to indie projects. I mean, here's a company who puts out titles like Uncharted, which has sold millions of copies, saying things like it will be a success "if they can get just one person to say "Unfinished Swan" has affected them". That's a huge difference in outlook. AAA titles with huge, huge budgets are becoming more and more common and more and more homogenized. Call of Duty releases a new $60 game a year that absurd amounts of people buy, and there are thousands of other clones that keep the shooting mechanics, cover mechanics, setting, etc. The worst part is that even other first person shooters that were different are starting to become more and more like Call of Duty because publishers think that "like Call of Duty" is what is going to sell.

This is why Sony putting money into indie projects makes me happy. Not only is it not homogenized, but it's not even all that profitable. I mean, college students certainly do know how to stretch a dollar, so as far as return on investment goes, it might not be too unprofitable, but indie games usually only sell for around $10. Any money Sony puts into The Unfinished Swan may be going into something most people will have never heard of. They'll probably make back their investment, but they certainly won't make billions of dollars in profit, so what does this say to me?

It says that even though Sony is obviously interested in profit, maybe they're interested in the art too. Maybe this is like the charitable arm of the company, taking promising developers who really have the inspiration and the drive to make something great and granting them the tools they need. Maybe there really is room in the high-profile video game world for something as unusual and innovative as The Unfinished Swan, and maybe there really is hope for AAA titles to share the spotlight a bit.

Maybe.

The Human Species Evolution

Okay, so I was looking for a news story to write about, and I came across one in the science section of BBC News.  It was about a new species of humans that was confirmed to have existed.  Here is the link if anyone wants to read it.  This article was particularly interesting to me because as a geology major, I like that sort of thing.  And I hadn't thought about multiple human species before.

Basically the article said that there have now been at least three confirmed species of humans that existed two million years ago.  The one that we evolved from used to be the only line of humans until about 50 years ago, when another was discovered through fossil fragments, and again recently.  Because there is only one strand of humans today, the others must have dies out.

I had newer thought about having mutations of humans that tried to survive several million years ago.  I mean, it makes sense.  Everything has to evolve, and there are many different animals with ancestors that branched into strands of mutations that became the animals that we see today.  There were species that died out back then, so why not have humans do the same?  Trials of what would works best that used "survival of the fittest" to narrow down the strands until just one is left to form a typical "human."  From a scientific viewpoint, it is obvious that of course there would be different branches of humans.

So I thought that was an interesting article that made me think about something I hadn't considered before.  I hope you enjoyed reading, and Kathleen will end the week for us tomorrow.

And The Medal Goes To...

With the 2012 London Olympics in full swing, I thought I’d use this week to write about an Olympic-themed news story.  Like many, I’m a casual Olympic spectator, and while I know next to nothing about most of the sports or any of the Olympic committees, I do enjoy cheering on team U.S.A with family and friends from the comfort of my living room.  So, when I looked over the Sports section of the newspaper this morning, I saw an interesting headline near the top of the first page about the taxation of bonuses that U.S. athletes receive for winning medals in the Games.  Apparently, the U.S. Olympic Committee rewards North American gold-medal winners with $25,000, silver-medalists with $15,000, and bronze-medalists with $10,000, all of which is taxed, just as any other income is taxed.  But when this information became public, some of our U.S. legislators are calling for the revocation of this law, saying that the athletes who volunteer to represent our country should not be taxed on the rewards they earn for brining glory to our country.  So, where does that leave us?

Well, long story short, we have an income tax, so income needs to be taxed.  This isn’t meant to take anything away from the athletes who work hard to represent our country in an international arena, because that would be doing them a completely uncalled for disservice. However, hardworking people who aren’t world-class athletes have to pay taxes on their income, and that includes performance bonuses, every year.  And when you think about it, every two years, or four years depending on how you look at it, athletes “bring glory to our country” on a gigantic international stage at the Olympic Games, and that’s something special in and of itself.  But, ordinary people also “bring glory to our country” everyday in different ways, ranging from small and unnoticed to sometimes big and newsworthy.  And yet, they are still expected to pay taxes on whatever bonuses they receive.  So, it seems only fair that Olympic athletes should be expected to pay taxes on their bonuses, just like everyone else.  Besides, Olympic athletes have numerous options for tax deductions in things, say travel expenses.  
  

Crime and Punishment, with Sex Offenders

I've been struggling a bit to find a suitable topic for this post, mostly because I don't follow the news as closely as I once did.  But while crawling the web tonight, looking for something notable that I could write about (and that interested me), I came across an article that gave me pause.  In short, I think it'll do.  You can see the article for yourself here.

For those not wishing to click through and read the article, I'll summarize.  In June of 2008, two men of an appropriate age engaged in consensual sex.  One of them, named Nick, is HIV-positive.  Despite being aware of his condition, he didn't disclose it to his partner, named Adam, basing the decision around his being on medication and using proper protection.  Three months later, Nick was arrested and charged with criminal transmission of HIV - which, in Iowa (where the incident took place), is a charge comparable to manslaughter, robbery, and kidnapping.  Nick entered a plea of guilty, on the advice of his attorney, even though Adam eventually tested negative for HIV.  The result?  Nick was incarcerated for nine months with a bond of $250,000, and was eventually sentenced to 25 years in prison.  He appealed his sentence to the judge, and is now out of prison - although on supervised probation.  He's also had to register as a sex offender, and will have to do so for the rest of his life.

So, was this an appropriate punishment for the crime that took place?  ... Parts of it, I can (mostly) agree with, but I don't agree with most of it.  The only thing that Nick was guilty of was not disclosing his condition to Adam before they engaged in their sexual encounter.  This isn't even remotely okay - if you have a condition, it's your responsibility to inform the other person about it beforehand - both as a responsible human being, and as someone who (assumedly) cares about the person you're doing things with.  Do I believe Nick was at fault for that?  Absolutely.  I don't, however, agree with him being charged with "criminal transmission of HIV".  As stated earlier - no such transmission took place.  How can you rightfully charge someone with something that didn't actually happen?  It's not even like one of the highly-publicized court cases where the jury decided someone was not guilty - there's irrefutable proof that the crime didn't occur.  Does Nick's plea of guilty supercede hard, factual evidence?  This really confuses me, and makes me wonder why we don't have some sort of "common sense clause" to prevent that sort of thing (or, if we do, why it wasn't used).

So, Nick was charged with what he was charged with.  First off, $250,000 bond?  Really?  I mean, for someone who's well-known and, you know, actually has that kind of money, then sure.  But Nick seems like your everyday kind of guy, and most people I know don't have a spare quarter of a million dollars to post for bond.  Why set a bond at all, if it's going to be something so ridiculous?  And as far as the sentencing goes - 25 years in prison seems like a pretty harsh sentence for this kind of thing.  Did Nick screw up?  Absolutely. I don't think he should spend a quarter (or more) of his life in prison because of it (again, especially because of the lack of transmission).  The nine months he spent incarcerated before the trial seems like it was enough, to me.  I don't see the point of the prison sentence.

Now, the bit about registering as a sex offender is where I start getting into my personal gray area.  First off, I want to think out loud (or, in text, as you will) about the concept of a sex offender registration.  What's the purpose of it?  The obvious answer is to identify people who are potentially dangerous and/or of a higher risk to break the law concerning sexual activities.  One of the notable facts about the sex offender registry, however, is that it doesn't differentiate (on the surface) between the different crimes committed.  Looking up an individual on the website does give you details about what they were convicted of, and when - but it requires you to search out that individual person.  On the surface, people like Nick are lumped in with people who have been convicted of child molestation, rape, and the like.  Is this wrong?  ... That's hard to say.  I believe there are changes that could help the system, such as a more visible initial differential between the different crimes, or for lesser crimes, a time-limited registration.  I'm a big believer in second chances for people, and after what he went through with Adam, I would have to believe that Nick isn't likely to fail to disclose his condition again.  Despite this, he'll still have to be a registered sex offender for the foreseeable future, and he'll be more limited in his opportunities because of that.  I know that there's no perfect solution out there for this kind of thing, but it seems wrong to lump all offenders together on a single list, regardless of the nature of their crime.

That's about all I've got for this topic.  Pendleton will be here tomorrow with her topic, and as always, feel free to leave any comments or thoughts below (and on the other entries in our blog).  Thanks for reading.

Blood and Dude Sex

First off, I'd like to say that I'm incredibly excited to say that this is the one hundredth post to this blog, and it seems like a fitting time for implementing a new format. To kick off the first of our Current Events weeks, I'm going to talk about an issue that sort of ties into last week's topic of discrimination that I couldn't figure out how to bring up in my post, so I'm gonna ramble a bit about it here: blood donation and the non-heterosexual male.

For those of you that don't know, one of the FDA's current policies (originally enacted in 1985, back before we really understood what AIDS was or how it spread) for donated blood is that if you are a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood. If you are a female that has had sexual contact with a male that has had sexual contact with another male even once since 1977, you are not allowed to donate blood for one year after last exposure. This issue is one that carries a lot of weight for me on a personal level, so perhaps I should start with explaining my background with it.

I've been donating blood with a semi-large group of my friends fairly regularly since December 2009. Usually the majority of us are able to give, but there's almost always at least one of us that can't. Ever since they eliminated the maximum pulse requirement, that one person has never been me. I'm also one of the least prone in our group to serious problems with feeling ill afterward. My blood type is O+, which means that my red cells can go to anyone that has an Rh positive blood type. All things considered, I'm a pretty great blood donor.

I'm also bisexual. I've yet to ever be  in a sexual relationship with another guy (for reasons that are not to be discussed on this blog), but if I were in that position... I'm not really sure what I'd do. Actually, I know exactly what I'd do. I'd lie to the blood donor center. I'd also invite my theoretical boyfriend to come give blood with me the next time I went.

Now, I'm not going to pretend that MSMs aren't at a somewhat higher risk than straight guys for contracting HIV. That being said, I'm pretty sure that the difference between being a slut that'll fuck anything with a pulse and opposite-sex sex organs and having sex only in the context of a committed relationship is far more significant for determining risk than sexual orientation.

I can understand why the fear of AIDS and lack of understanding led to the creation of this ban on MSM blood donors, but the fact that it exists in this day and age is utterly ridiculous. I have a lot of facts from the American Red Cross about blood donation and why we need more people doing it, but the most striking is that under 38% of the population is eligible to give blood, and the fact of the matter is that most people simply don't.

I think that Spain and Italy have the right idea on this. As stated in the article, their policies prevent donation if you've had more than one sex partner in the past six months, regardless of sexual orientation. This makes much more sense, and with how much more reliable HIV tests are today, there's no real reason to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Giving up the opportunity for perfectly healthy blood because of a homophobic policy is just... absurd.

As a final note, I wholeheartedly encourage everybody reading to head over to their nearest blood donor center and go through the screening process to try to give blood. I can't stand needles, and this kept me from trying to give blood for a while, but upon finally being convinced that it was worth trying once, I found that it wasn't that bad. You don't have to look at the needle when it goes in, it doesn't hurt, it's over before you know it, there are rarely any adverse effects unless you fail to follow the instructions given, and you get free cookies and juice.

...Seriously, who doesn't love free cookies and juice?

Current Events and a New Format

Okay, I'm here to announce some structural changes starting this week. Normally this space (as you know) is used to announce the topic we've selected to discuss this week. But with this week, and every other week after, this space won't be as needed. That is because we elected the weeks to be "news story weeks."

Basically, I'm going to lay out the month format for you to see.

Week 1: Current Events
Week 2: Breather Topic (aka: usually in the style of "favorite ___")
Week 3: Current Events
Week 4: Serious Topic (aka: the stuff we've usually been talking about)

When we say "Current Events" we mean that each person is going to pick a news story for that week that interests them, and write about it. For two weeks out of the month we won't all be writing about the same topic, instead we'll be sharing something that we personally think is interesting and want to show you.

So I hope you'll find the new format enjoyable and as interesting as we find it ourselves. I'm am personally looking forward to what everyone has to share this week.

Equality for everyone, but please no politics!

Okay, so I liked this topic and spent a lot of time figuring out what I wanted to say, so hopefully I can make some kind of sense.  Discrimination has been a natural part of our history, based on race, gender, and other qualifications.  Many people have participated in discrimination even without consciously realizing it, by their actions against certain people.  Laws have been set up for lowering the amount of discrimination that is apparent in our society, and they have had varying amounts of success.

I don't know much about individual anti-discrimination laws, but they seem to all relate to giving minority groups more rights, correct?  Also, the definition of a "minority group" is a little fuzzy to me.  Why does women count as a minority group?  Aren't there just as many women as men, or is my perception of our population just majorly screwed up?  I don't know, I could be wrong, I have no idea.  I understand Hispanics or blacks in the United States being a minority group, because there is a  lesser percentage of them compared to the whole.  But isn't the gender ratio relatively equal?

So, I also don't really understand feminists who are obsessed with getting absolutely equal rights and then get pissed when the men fire back at them about things like maternity leave.  I don't really get that, but then I also have no idea about the discrimination in the workplace, which is what I think people are generally getting at when they are talking about such issues.  I think that if is isn't really a big issue for you, don't worry about it.  It's not really worth all the fuss to just get a raise or something just because of being a woman, instead of just taking it.  But then, I'm a really easy-going person and don't care much about working politics.

Races are also an interesting discussion.  Due to the lovely racism prior to the Civil War, we seem to still have a general spat between blacks and whites, even though most people have gotten over it all.  It seems to have gone crazy, with a fuss being made when whites do something racist towards minority groups even if there are cases of the opposite happening.  Or maybe that's just what you hear more of, I don't know.  I think the laws pertaining to races should be equal, just on principle.  I have no idea of they are or not, but they should be.

Now we get to sexual orientation.  I think the Chick-Fil-A deal is a bit worn out by now, and I won't go into that at all.  I personally think that non-strait people should have all the same rights and freedoms and such that straight people have.  It should just be like that, and there shouldn't be a major fuss about it.  I could probably go longer on this, but I won't for the sake of everyone reading this post.

So hopefully that wasn't too ramble-y and chaotic.  Enjoy reading the news topics that every is going to be posting next week!