Het praatje van de week: Het streven naar geluk!
Het streven naar geluk is de perpetuum mobile die ons gaande houd, onze batterij die 's nachts oplaadt om onze drijfveer te zijn overdag. En we doen ons best om elke dag weer een schepje geluk bij de hoop te laden.
Geluk uit zich in verschillende vormen. Het is persoonlijk, uniek en eigen aan het beestje. Nochtans is er steeds een constante, namelijk de eenvoud. Een kind speelt langer met de verpakking dan met de mega-robot, een tiener hangt liever wat doelloos met zijn vrienden rond, een koppel jongvolwassenen geraakt dan weer niet verder dan het bed.
En wij als volwassenen met verantwoordelijkheid? Wij zijn soms op zoek naar het allesomvattende geluk, die verre levensdroom die we toch nooit zullen vervullen, het onbereikbare onoverkomelijke. Ergens onderweg vergeten we de appreciatie voor het eenvoudige geluk.
Maar gelukkig (ha!), soms vindt het ons nog. Een leuke babbel, een lekker bordje eten, met collega's in het park picknicken. Dat is de essentie. Zonder veel franjes. Tenzij dan die van het Perzische tapijt.
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Thursday, 14 July 2011
Ik heb een ego, en maar goed ook!
De vraag is niet 'heb ik een ego', maar 'heb ik een te groot ego'?
Ik ben van mening dat een beetje ego geen kwaad kan, zolang het niet te groot wordt. Ik zie 2 zaken die een ego typeren: Arrogantie en Morele Superioriteit. In het praatje van vandaag verdedig ik mijn standpunt dat een klein ego ok is.
Arrogantie is voorwaarde
Een steek onder de gordel, een giftige opmerking, een jaloerse blik, geen menselijk falen is ons vreemd. Maar o wee als men durft openlijk een opmerking te maken, dan word je bestempeld als iemand met een groot ego. Iemand die zichzelf centraal z(i)et en zich daar ook naar gedraagt. Maar is hij die zijn gedacht uitspreekt dan zoveel erger dan hij die het enkel binnensmonds denkt, of erger, achter de rug verspreidt? Enkel en alleen als je het uitspreken als arrogantie bestempeld.
Morele superioriteit
Als je jezelf goed in je vel voelt, durf je al eens gemakkelijk jezelf als maatstaf nemen om anderen tegen af te meten. Iemand met een groot ego heeft dan ook geen moeite om dit te pas en te onpas te doen. In de perceptie word je afgeslacht, en je aura van morele superioriteit wordt ter plekke aangevallen. Ik ben er nochtans van overtuigd dat dit niet altijd terecht is.
Onze ver ontwikkelde samenleving zit zodanig complex in elkaar dat je onmogelijk een eenzijdige redenering kan verdedigen. Elke munt heeft een keerzijde, en dan nog. Het heeft zelf een randje. Zolang je niet de moeite doet om de ommezijde, keerzijde én kantzijde te bestuderen heb je, naar mijn mening, last van het zogeheten 'morele superioriteitsgevoel'. Jouw standpunt is onverzoenbaar met enig ander, en is -toevallig- ook het enige juiste. In zulke debatten hoor ik geen argumenten meer, maar enkel: '"Ego! Ego! Ego!"
Het ego als een blok aan het been.
Maar vergis je niet. Jezelf omhoog duwen ten koste van anderen getuigt helemaal niet van een groot ego. Het getuigt enkel van een emotionele onzekerheid die geuit wordt ten koste van de gemakkelijke slachtoffers, inclusief zij die zich niet (meer) kunnen verdedigen. Deze lafhartigheid leidt tot een verstoorde sociale interactie, en nooit tot een gezonde vriendschap. Helaas is hier ook een kruisbestuiving met arrogantie, maar dan met een neerbuigende connotatie. Het ego is dan een belemmering, een steen rond de nek, een last die steeds zwaarder is om te torsen, steeds zwaarder om je hoofd eervol omhoog te houden.
Ja, ik ben een tikkel arrogant, voel me moreel superieur en heb dus een ego. Gelukkig maar!
Het spijtige van onze maatschappij is dat we ongewild in een mallemolen zijn terecht gekomen waar je moet vechten voor je plaatsje. Jezelf positioneren is geen luxe, maar een noodzaak geworden. De wereld zit namelijk niet te wachten op jou. In deze optiek is het dus zeker niet verkeerd van je eigen capaciteiten goed te kunnen inschatten, en die daarna af te meten aan je medemens. In zekere zin heb je dus enige arrogantie nodig.
Je moet jezelf kunnen verkopen, op het werk, op een date en bij je vrienden. Lethargie wordt afgestraft, ambitie bejubeld. Om in de "rat race" te blijven moet je wel beschikken over een zekere dosis Ego. Een ander graag zien, begint nog steeds met jezelf graag zien. Je bent dus het aan jezelf verplicht een ego te kweken.
In een sociale omgeving veroveren we onze plaats niet doordat iedereen een ander gerust laat, en een veilige afstand bewaart. Nee hoor, onze plaats moet opgeëist worden door met de ellebogen te wrikken. Elke dag opnieuw sta je tussen het festivalpubliek. En wil je niet meedoen, dan word je vertrappeld. Een zekere morele superioriteit kan dus geen kwaad om jouw mening te laten horen en jouw perimeter in stand te houden.
Conclusie
Het ego mag, je mag fier zijn op jezelf, je mag je mening laten horen. Maar wel op een positieve manier. Want zij die roepen dat een ander een ego heeft, begaan net dezelfde fout.
Ik ben van mening dat een beetje ego geen kwaad kan, zolang het niet te groot wordt. Ik zie 2 zaken die een ego typeren: Arrogantie en Morele Superioriteit. In het praatje van vandaag verdedig ik mijn standpunt dat een klein ego ok is.
Arrogantie is voorwaarde
Een steek onder de gordel, een giftige opmerking, een jaloerse blik, geen menselijk falen is ons vreemd. Maar o wee als men durft openlijk een opmerking te maken, dan word je bestempeld als iemand met een groot ego. Iemand die zichzelf centraal z(i)et en zich daar ook naar gedraagt. Maar is hij die zijn gedacht uitspreekt dan zoveel erger dan hij die het enkel binnensmonds denkt, of erger, achter de rug verspreidt? Enkel en alleen als je het uitspreken als arrogantie bestempeld.
Morele superioriteit
Als je jezelf goed in je vel voelt, durf je al eens gemakkelijk jezelf als maatstaf nemen om anderen tegen af te meten. Iemand met een groot ego heeft dan ook geen moeite om dit te pas en te onpas te doen. In de perceptie word je afgeslacht, en je aura van morele superioriteit wordt ter plekke aangevallen. Ik ben er nochtans van overtuigd dat dit niet altijd terecht is.
Onze ver ontwikkelde samenleving zit zodanig complex in elkaar dat je onmogelijk een eenzijdige redenering kan verdedigen. Elke munt heeft een keerzijde, en dan nog. Het heeft zelf een randje. Zolang je niet de moeite doet om de ommezijde, keerzijde én kantzijde te bestuderen heb je, naar mijn mening, last van het zogeheten 'morele superioriteitsgevoel'. Jouw standpunt is onverzoenbaar met enig ander, en is -toevallig- ook het enige juiste. In zulke debatten hoor ik geen argumenten meer, maar enkel: '"Ego! Ego! Ego!"
Het ego als een blok aan het been.
Maar vergis je niet. Jezelf omhoog duwen ten koste van anderen getuigt helemaal niet van een groot ego. Het getuigt enkel van een emotionele onzekerheid die geuit wordt ten koste van de gemakkelijke slachtoffers, inclusief zij die zich niet (meer) kunnen verdedigen. Deze lafhartigheid leidt tot een verstoorde sociale interactie, en nooit tot een gezonde vriendschap. Helaas is hier ook een kruisbestuiving met arrogantie, maar dan met een neerbuigende connotatie. Het ego is dan een belemmering, een steen rond de nek, een last die steeds zwaarder is om te torsen, steeds zwaarder om je hoofd eervol omhoog te houden.
Ja, ik ben een tikkel arrogant, voel me moreel superieur en heb dus een ego. Gelukkig maar!
Het spijtige van onze maatschappij is dat we ongewild in een mallemolen zijn terecht gekomen waar je moet vechten voor je plaatsje. Jezelf positioneren is geen luxe, maar een noodzaak geworden. De wereld zit namelijk niet te wachten op jou. In deze optiek is het dus zeker niet verkeerd van je eigen capaciteiten goed te kunnen inschatten, en die daarna af te meten aan je medemens. In zekere zin heb je dus enige arrogantie nodig.
Je moet jezelf kunnen verkopen, op het werk, op een date en bij je vrienden. Lethargie wordt afgestraft, ambitie bejubeld. Om in de "rat race" te blijven moet je wel beschikken over een zekere dosis Ego. Een ander graag zien, begint nog steeds met jezelf graag zien. Je bent dus het aan jezelf verplicht een ego te kweken.
In een sociale omgeving veroveren we onze plaats niet doordat iedereen een ander gerust laat, en een veilige afstand bewaart. Nee hoor, onze plaats moet opgeëist worden door met de ellebogen te wrikken. Elke dag opnieuw sta je tussen het festivalpubliek. En wil je niet meedoen, dan word je vertrappeld. Een zekere morele superioriteit kan dus geen kwaad om jouw mening te laten horen en jouw perimeter in stand te houden.
Conclusie
Het ego mag, je mag fier zijn op jezelf, je mag je mening laten horen. Maar wel op een positieve manier. Want zij die roepen dat een ander een ego heeft, begaan net dezelfde fout.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Hydrogen Storage: Getting rid of the unpractical gas cylinder.
As you may have read in my previous article on energy for the future (), hydrogen is considered a top candidate to replace oil in the near future. It's high energy capacity (120 MJ/kg compared to 44 MJ/kg for gasoline), makes it a viable replacement. But there is more. It produces a clean exhaust product (water vapor without CO2 or NOx), and can be derived from a variety of primary energy sources. All in favor of hydrogen. But there is one big issues. Hydrogen is a volatile gas. It is difficult to store and can escape out of most common containers. That makes it difficult to handle and transport. But if this is the only issue keeping us from using hydrogen, maybe some research to better storage means can be done?
Reading this article means that they've done that already. With some success, but not quite perfect. I'll try to give an overview. Let's examine the criteria for our ideal hydrogen storage:
1) operate on room temperature
2) contain a lot of gas
3) atmospheric pressure
For oil, this is simply named a barrel. For a gasous substance, that's more difficult, and that's why we can allow some deviations from the ideal container. We could use some cooling if needed, and we could also put some pressure on it, but that makes it more dangerous to operate. And we don't want danger. At least, I don't.
Pressurized gas
We know this guy already. A canister of gas under pressure. It's not ideal because it's under pressure (800bar!). You need a safety valve that brings the pressure down and you're good to go. If we take this simple method our reference, we can measure up the others.
Liquid hydrogen in cryo tanks
Instead of raising the pressure, we can also drop the temperature. It contains twice as much hydrogen as the pressurized gas can, our reference, and it does not need extra pressure. What it needs is a cooling mechanism that makes the container cumbersome and the very low temperature (-252°C) makes it a hazard.
Complex compounds
Another idea is to produce the hydrogen in another molecule. For example within metal complexes. It's produced at high temperatures, because the absorption is high, but released at low temperatures, when the desorbtion is high. Playing with the temperatures would create a system of absorbtion and desorption. The container would not be that heavy, it could operate at atmospheric pressure, hold 4 times as much gas (and thus energy) as a presurized cylinder, but playing with the temperature makes it as impractical as all the others.
Absorbing Hydrogen
This is where it gets interesting. Gas can adhere to a surface, so given sufficient surface, you can make it into a storage medium. Sort of. For the same amount of volume you can only store half of what our reference would do and you still need both the low temperature (-80°C) and high pressure (100 bar). Not a good candidate at all, but at least it's a good idea.
Absorbing Hydrogen to porous metals
Absording hydrogen seems to work better if we engineer the adhering material better. We can construct a metal surface, covered in little caveats. The hydrogen adheres better, and it has a larger surface to adhere to. We are getting better results here. This technique offers 4 times as much hydrogen storage for the same volume, operates around room temperature and at atmospheric pressure. Seems like this thing has it all? Not quite, it's not robust enough. And it's heavy. Very heavy. It's volume is large, but the container is just stone heavy.
Metal-organic frameworks
So could we create a big surface area for the hydrogen to adhere to, that is lightweight itself? Well, a promising technology is the metal-organic frameworks (MOF). The idea is that you create a 3 dimensional structure of metals (to adhere the hydrogen) and small organic molecules (to bond the metals). The choice of metals and organic molecules is almost endless, so research is being done to optimize this technology. But the latest develloped MOFs are capable of storing more than 4 times the volume of hydrogen without comparable container weight while operating at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Conclusion
What is holding us back to fully deploy the latest technology? Well, it is not as cost effective as the current common containers. And as long as there is no dire need, investment in more expensive technology is not economical driven. It's good to know that researchers continue to refine this technology so that it will be top notch when it becomes a necessity.
Reading this article means that they've done that already. With some success, but not quite perfect. I'll try to give an overview. Let's examine the criteria for our ideal hydrogen storage:
1) operate on room temperature
2) contain a lot of gas
3) atmospheric pressure
For oil, this is simply named a barrel. For a gasous substance, that's more difficult, and that's why we can allow some deviations from the ideal container. We could use some cooling if needed, and we could also put some pressure on it, but that makes it more dangerous to operate. And we don't want danger. At least, I don't.
Pressurized gas
We know this guy already. A canister of gas under pressure. It's not ideal because it's under pressure (800bar!). You need a safety valve that brings the pressure down and you're good to go. If we take this simple method our reference, we can measure up the others.
Liquid hydrogen in cryo tanks
Instead of raising the pressure, we can also drop the temperature. It contains twice as much hydrogen as the pressurized gas can, our reference, and it does not need extra pressure. What it needs is a cooling mechanism that makes the container cumbersome and the very low temperature (-252°C) makes it a hazard.
Complex compounds
Another idea is to produce the hydrogen in another molecule. For example within metal complexes. It's produced at high temperatures, because the absorption is high, but released at low temperatures, when the desorbtion is high. Playing with the temperatures would create a system of absorbtion and desorption. The container would not be that heavy, it could operate at atmospheric pressure, hold 4 times as much gas (and thus energy) as a presurized cylinder, but playing with the temperature makes it as impractical as all the others.
Absorbing Hydrogen
This is where it gets interesting. Gas can adhere to a surface, so given sufficient surface, you can make it into a storage medium. Sort of. For the same amount of volume you can only store half of what our reference would do and you still need both the low temperature (-80°C) and high pressure (100 bar). Not a good candidate at all, but at least it's a good idea.
Absorbing Hydrogen to porous metals
Absording hydrogen seems to work better if we engineer the adhering material better. We can construct a metal surface, covered in little caveats. The hydrogen adheres better, and it has a larger surface to adhere to. We are getting better results here. This technique offers 4 times as much hydrogen storage for the same volume, operates around room temperature and at atmospheric pressure. Seems like this thing has it all? Not quite, it's not robust enough. And it's heavy. Very heavy. It's volume is large, but the container is just stone heavy.
Metal-organic frameworks
So could we create a big surface area for the hydrogen to adhere to, that is lightweight itself? Well, a promising technology is the metal-organic frameworks (MOF). The idea is that you create a 3 dimensional structure of metals (to adhere the hydrogen) and small organic molecules (to bond the metals). The choice of metals and organic molecules is almost endless, so research is being done to optimize this technology. But the latest develloped MOFs are capable of storing more than 4 times the volume of hydrogen without comparable container weight while operating at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Conclusion
What is holding us back to fully deploy the latest technology? Well, it is not as cost effective as the current common containers. And as long as there is no dire need, investment in more expensive technology is not economical driven. It's good to know that researchers continue to refine this technology so that it will be top notch when it becomes a necessity.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Plop en zijn vriendjes zijn ziek
Leven in een paddestoel is fysiek en psychisch ongezond
Het populaire kinderprogramma 'Kabouter Plop' leert de kinderen dat er een olijke bende kabouters in wat paddestoelen in het bos leven en daar met de regelmaat van de klok dolle avonturen meemaken. Hoewel komisch voor de kinderen, blijkt dat het leven in een paddestoel een aanzienlijk risico voor de gezondheid inhoudt. Elk van de kabouters lijdt aan een of andere chronische (zenuw)aandoening. In dit artikel wil ik de medemens informeren en waarschuwen. Ga zelf niet in een paddestoel wonen als u de volgende kwalijke effecten niet wil.
Kabouter Lui
Deze kabouter heeft een erg laag energieniveau. De minste inspanning is hem te veel, en hij wil en zal overal liever slapen dan actief te zijn. Hoewel een duidelijke vinger kan gewezen worden naar zijn overgewicht, is dit niet de hoofdoorzaak aangezien al zijn vriendjes aan dezelfde morbide obesitas lijden. Er lijkt iets ernstigers aan de hand. Zijn symptomen wijzen in de richting van ernstige ziektebeelden zoals hartfalen, leverfalen, enz. Een andere klinische reden is drugsmisbruik. Ik denk dat we het punt gemaakt hebben. Kabouter Lui knabbelt te vaak aan zijn eigen huisje.
Kabouter Klus
Deze overijverige kabouter is een beetje een verwarde geest. Zijn verzinsels grenzen vaak aan het waanzinnige, en hij maakt zich daarmee een gevaar voor de kaboutersamenleving. Hij knapt de dingen op, klust dat het een lieve lust is, maar dit tomeloze energieniveau is een duidelijk teken dat er iets moet gecompenseerd worden. De geldingsdrang van deze kabouter moet wel het resultaat zijn van een triestige jeugd. Mijn vermoeden is dan ook dan zijn vriendjes zijn grootgebracht in een grote vliegenzwam, en onze lustige klusser in een kwalijke schimmel. Deze sociologische situatie heeft een verknipte geest gebaard. Het val maar af te wachten of al zijn geknutselde tuigen geen slachtoffers maken.
Kabouter Kwebbel
Haar niet aflatende praatdrang wijst op een andere psychisch fenomeen. Vaak verteld ze hetzelfde verhaal keer op keer, hetgeen kan wijzen op een dementie. Als ze dan ook het incoherente gewauwel aanhoudt, vrees is dat we er afasie moeten bijgooien. Deze hersenschade manifesteert zich normaal op latere leeftijd, maar omgevingsfactoren kunnen een rol spelen. Het is goed mogelijk dat dit cognitief gebrek reeds vanaf de geboorte aanwezig was of eerder het gevolg is van een genetische afwijking. Helaas kunnen we de stamboom van deze kabouters niet achterhalen, blijkbaar ligt de levensverwachting niet erg hoog en zijn alle verwanten reeds gestorven.
Kabouter Smal
Erg verward wordt het voor deze casus. De neutrale toeschouwer ziet duidelijk dat kabouter Smal helemaal niet smal is. Integendeel. Zelf een kind zal niet spontaan het label 'smal' op zulk rondbuikige kabouter plakken. We mogen er ook vanuit gaan dat haar kaboutervrienden niet blind zijn. Mentaal uitgedaagd, maar niet blind. Toch is iedereen ermee akkoord haar met 'Smal' aan te spreken. Dit kan mogelijks verklaard worden doordat zij in de ontkenningsfase zit, en een compulsief dominant karater heeft ontwikkeld. Zo erg dat ze klaarblijkelijk haar vriendjes indoctrineerd of intimideerd. In ieder geval, zit er een zeer agressief kantje aan deze kabouter, want ze slaagt erin om zich Smal te laten noemen door iedereen, terwijl dat allesbehalve zo is. Het hier kunnen gaan om predominante negatieve symptomen, gelinkt aan een geketende sexuele ontluiking. Haar lusten zijn quasi ontembaar, maar haar laatste restje waardigheid behoedt haar om Plop of Lui in te lijven. Om maar niet te moeten zeggen dat haar drang niet onderdrukt wordt als je de godgansedag op een champignon moet kijken.
Kabouter Plop
Het echte brein, maar dan zoals een eenoog de koning is in het land der blinden. Zijn gratuite uitspraken vuurt hij af zonder enige hinder van kennis. Hij werpt zich op als de mentaal vaardige zodat hij met al zijn dommigheid goed weg komt. Hij heeft zichzelf opgeworpen tot de alfakabouter, en dit enkel door zijn vrienden te paaien met plopkoeken. Er kan geen twijfel over bestaan, dat deze plopkoeken een drogerend bestanddeel bevatten (waarschijnlijk een paddestoel derivaat) zodat de loyaliteit van zijn vrienden enkel biochemisch is. Om zo een plan te bedenken, moet je toch een beetje psychopaat zijn. Ik hou met hart vast wat er gebeurt als iemand er achter komt. Psychopaten hebben namelijk graag de controle, en kunnen medegeloos optreden als ze dit dreigen te verliezen. De warrige bende die hij zijn vrienden noemt, zijn niet meer dan een troepje verslaafde, die zich als ratten elke dag naar de rattenvangen (lees: dealer) begeven. Uit vrije wil, zo u wil.
Is er dan niets dan we kunnen doen om ze te helpen?
Onze zorgmaatschappij is helaas niet afgestemd op hun minuscule noden. Ik vermoed trouwens dat het allen belastingsontduikers zijn. Het zou dan ook niet passen, moesten we hier een zorgprogramma opstellen, op koste van de ziekteverzekering. Het enige dat echt helpt, is een staatsgreep om die Kabouter Plop van de macht te stoten zodat deze huisjesmelker geen onschuldige kabouters meer rond zich in erbarmelijke omstandigheden verzameld. Maar niemand heeft tot op heden dit durven doen. Zijn muts bevat namelijk krachten die niemand durft te tarten. En dus blijft alles zoals het is. Wij vinden het grappig, en de kabouters zitten onder het juk en hun gezondheid gaat zienderogend achteruit.
Het populaire kinderprogramma 'Kabouter Plop' leert de kinderen dat er een olijke bende kabouters in wat paddestoelen in het bos leven en daar met de regelmaat van de klok dolle avonturen meemaken. Hoewel komisch voor de kinderen, blijkt dat het leven in een paddestoel een aanzienlijk risico voor de gezondheid inhoudt. Elk van de kabouters lijdt aan een of andere chronische (zenuw)aandoening. In dit artikel wil ik de medemens informeren en waarschuwen. Ga zelf niet in een paddestoel wonen als u de volgende kwalijke effecten niet wil.
Kabouter Lui
Deze kabouter heeft een erg laag energieniveau. De minste inspanning is hem te veel, en hij wil en zal overal liever slapen dan actief te zijn. Hoewel een duidelijke vinger kan gewezen worden naar zijn overgewicht, is dit niet de hoofdoorzaak aangezien al zijn vriendjes aan dezelfde morbide obesitas lijden. Er lijkt iets ernstigers aan de hand. Zijn symptomen wijzen in de richting van ernstige ziektebeelden zoals hartfalen, leverfalen, enz. Een andere klinische reden is drugsmisbruik. Ik denk dat we het punt gemaakt hebben. Kabouter Lui knabbelt te vaak aan zijn eigen huisje.
Kabouter Klus
Deze overijverige kabouter is een beetje een verwarde geest. Zijn verzinsels grenzen vaak aan het waanzinnige, en hij maakt zich daarmee een gevaar voor de kaboutersamenleving. Hij knapt de dingen op, klust dat het een lieve lust is, maar dit tomeloze energieniveau is een duidelijk teken dat er iets moet gecompenseerd worden. De geldingsdrang van deze kabouter moet wel het resultaat zijn van een triestige jeugd. Mijn vermoeden is dan ook dan zijn vriendjes zijn grootgebracht in een grote vliegenzwam, en onze lustige klusser in een kwalijke schimmel. Deze sociologische situatie heeft een verknipte geest gebaard. Het val maar af te wachten of al zijn geknutselde tuigen geen slachtoffers maken.
Kabouter Kwebbel
Haar niet aflatende praatdrang wijst op een andere psychisch fenomeen. Vaak verteld ze hetzelfde verhaal keer op keer, hetgeen kan wijzen op een dementie. Als ze dan ook het incoherente gewauwel aanhoudt, vrees is dat we er afasie moeten bijgooien. Deze hersenschade manifesteert zich normaal op latere leeftijd, maar omgevingsfactoren kunnen een rol spelen. Het is goed mogelijk dat dit cognitief gebrek reeds vanaf de geboorte aanwezig was of eerder het gevolg is van een genetische afwijking. Helaas kunnen we de stamboom van deze kabouters niet achterhalen, blijkbaar ligt de levensverwachting niet erg hoog en zijn alle verwanten reeds gestorven.
Kabouter Smal
Erg verward wordt het voor deze casus. De neutrale toeschouwer ziet duidelijk dat kabouter Smal helemaal niet smal is. Integendeel. Zelf een kind zal niet spontaan het label 'smal' op zulk rondbuikige kabouter plakken. We mogen er ook vanuit gaan dat haar kaboutervrienden niet blind zijn. Mentaal uitgedaagd, maar niet blind. Toch is iedereen ermee akkoord haar met 'Smal' aan te spreken. Dit kan mogelijks verklaard worden doordat zij in de ontkenningsfase zit, en een compulsief dominant karater heeft ontwikkeld. Zo erg dat ze klaarblijkelijk haar vriendjes indoctrineerd of intimideerd. In ieder geval, zit er een zeer agressief kantje aan deze kabouter, want ze slaagt erin om zich Smal te laten noemen door iedereen, terwijl dat allesbehalve zo is. Het hier kunnen gaan om predominante negatieve symptomen, gelinkt aan een geketende sexuele ontluiking. Haar lusten zijn quasi ontembaar, maar haar laatste restje waardigheid behoedt haar om Plop of Lui in te lijven. Om maar niet te moeten zeggen dat haar drang niet onderdrukt wordt als je de godgansedag op een champignon moet kijken.
Kabouter Plop
Het echte brein, maar dan zoals een eenoog de koning is in het land der blinden. Zijn gratuite uitspraken vuurt hij af zonder enige hinder van kennis. Hij werpt zich op als de mentaal vaardige zodat hij met al zijn dommigheid goed weg komt. Hij heeft zichzelf opgeworpen tot de alfakabouter, en dit enkel door zijn vrienden te paaien met plopkoeken. Er kan geen twijfel over bestaan, dat deze plopkoeken een drogerend bestanddeel bevatten (waarschijnlijk een paddestoel derivaat) zodat de loyaliteit van zijn vrienden enkel biochemisch is. Om zo een plan te bedenken, moet je toch een beetje psychopaat zijn. Ik hou met hart vast wat er gebeurt als iemand er achter komt. Psychopaten hebben namelijk graag de controle, en kunnen medegeloos optreden als ze dit dreigen te verliezen. De warrige bende die hij zijn vrienden noemt, zijn niet meer dan een troepje verslaafde, die zich als ratten elke dag naar de rattenvangen (lees: dealer) begeven. Uit vrije wil, zo u wil.
Is er dan niets dan we kunnen doen om ze te helpen?
Onze zorgmaatschappij is helaas niet afgestemd op hun minuscule noden. Ik vermoed trouwens dat het allen belastingsontduikers zijn. Het zou dan ook niet passen, moesten we hier een zorgprogramma opstellen, op koste van de ziekteverzekering. Het enige dat echt helpt, is een staatsgreep om die Kabouter Plop van de macht te stoten zodat deze huisjesmelker geen onschuldige kabouters meer rond zich in erbarmelijke omstandigheden verzameld. Maar niemand heeft tot op heden dit durven doen. Zijn muts bevat namelijk krachten die niemand durft te tarten. En dus blijft alles zoals het is. Wij vinden het grappig, en de kabouters zitten onder het juk en hun gezondheid gaat zienderogend achteruit.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Energy Sufficiency of the Future
Energy is what keeps us going
For everything we do, we need energy. If you don't know what hunger is, then realising that the first step is energy for the body might be casual. But it's not. We could only develop as a human race when we found out how to generate enough energy so that not all members of the community need to supply food. When that was established we needed even more energy to fuel the activities of those that develop new technology. Simply put, energy is what keeps us going.
Oil made energy cheap
The technological leaps in the past few centuries are all linked to the knowledge to use oil. Oil is a wonderfull product, maybe too underappreciated. It is cheap to obtain, it is safe to handle, it contains the building blocks of life (any carbo structure) and it packs a smackload of energy. For the moment there is not a single alternative that tops oil in all these fields. Maybe coal can measure up, but it's drawback is that it's much more poluting than oil.
We know oil is limited. What are the alternatives?
Since oil is such a wonderfull product, it is a shame we use it just to burn. Because that is essesialy what combustion engines do. Burn oil to get energy. We could use the oil for far more interesting products like drugs, plastics, paint, etc... the list is endless. All these products cannot be as simple produced without oil. So it is essential that we for our need of energy, other means are necessary. Alternatives are natural gas, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Electricity
Electricity for example is a common source of energy. But unfortunatly electricity is merely a carrier of energy, and not a source of energy. Electricity can be obtained from all sorts of renewable sources (wind, water, sun) but as of today, a large proportion is still gained from just burning oil. Electricty is cheap to obtain, relatively safe to handle, can be transformed in all sorts of energy, but cannot be stored. We're not talking about a simple battery here. We're talking about large strategic reserves. Electricity cannot be transported over large distances. So all good things about electricity are valid as long as it can be produced hic et nunc. Production should be done by renewable sources, but for now we rely on other means.
Natural Gas
It is still abundant and can be simply burned to obtain electricity where needed. It is more dificult to handle, more difficult to store and more difficult to produce with, but it packs a lot of energy. It's emission from burning is not as poluting, but still much more than should be acceptable. All in all, I'd say that natural gas will remain a dominant source of energy for the next 100 years. But it too has it's limited sources.
Hydrogen
The gas has some serious advantages coupled with disadvantages. It can be obtained from plain water (for now it is produced from natural gas), so it's supply is endless. It packs a lot of energy and is absolutly not poluting because burning hydrogen with oxigen given plain water. The downside is that it too is difficult to store long term and difficult to handle.
Nuclear power
Nuclear fission, splitting atoms, provides around 25% of the global energy. It is cheap, easy to store, no green house gas emission, and packs tons of energy. But as we all know, it is dangerous to handle and it's waste products remain a long term hazard. Nonetheless, nuclear fission is still a reliable source of energy for the comming 100 years.
Nuclear fusion on the other hand, is a promissing technology. Unfortunatly, it's been promission for over 50 years now. Joining 2 hydrogen cores yields an enormous amount of energy. But today it requires more energy to initiate than energy released. A negative yield. If we could turn this around and produce more energy than that is consumed, there would be an endless source of energy that is not poluting, that packs a lot of energy, but lacks the versatility from oil as it suffers the same drawbacks because the energy carrier would be electricity.
Have we reached the pinnacle?
With no other sources that can replace oil, and oil is limited, does this mean we will soon face a downfall in the develeopment degree of our society? Yes and No. We have about 50 years time to turn the oil dependency into something else. And most probably it will be a mixture of all alternatives explained above. Is there any hope for a source of infite clean energy? Yes, that's the good thing.
The Future on Green Energy?
Personally I don't believe the future belongs to the renewable energy source, because simply put, we've already evolved beyond that. Our energy needs will only rise and cannot be matched by green energy alone. It would be fantastic if we pull it of, but I doubt that poorer developed countries will have the capacity to invest in these types of energy sources.
The Future on Technology?
We have been spoiled with all sort of technological advancements that we rely on the scientist to solve every problem. This naieve thinking is a bubble that has already bursted. When the first nuclear plants were erected, there was no plan for the nuclear waste. Yet everyone was confident that in the near future, a good solution would be found. Well, 50 years later, there is still nothing. The russians dump it in the deepests gorges in the ocean, other try to cover it with tons of earth. The problem remains, it is only replaced.
I do have hope!
Yet, there is one breakthrough that will give us the ideal world with renewable unlimited energy: superconductors. A superconductor material is a material where electricity flows freely without resistance. It creates flawless magnetic fields and can make electricity storage devices. In other words, it can overcome all the drawbacks from electricy. But it gets better. Who cares about a perfect carrier if you don't have the perfect source? Well, the perfect magnetic field of a superconductor can help in overcomming the nuclear fission yield problem. And thus we'll have unlimited source and carrier of energy. And the world population will explode, but that's another story.
For everything we do, we need energy. If you don't know what hunger is, then realising that the first step is energy for the body might be casual. But it's not. We could only develop as a human race when we found out how to generate enough energy so that not all members of the community need to supply food. When that was established we needed even more energy to fuel the activities of those that develop new technology. Simply put, energy is what keeps us going.
Oil made energy cheap
The technological leaps in the past few centuries are all linked to the knowledge to use oil. Oil is a wonderfull product, maybe too underappreciated. It is cheap to obtain, it is safe to handle, it contains the building blocks of life (any carbo structure) and it packs a smackload of energy. For the moment there is not a single alternative that tops oil in all these fields. Maybe coal can measure up, but it's drawback is that it's much more poluting than oil.
We know oil is limited. What are the alternatives?
Since oil is such a wonderfull product, it is a shame we use it just to burn. Because that is essesialy what combustion engines do. Burn oil to get energy. We could use the oil for far more interesting products like drugs, plastics, paint, etc... the list is endless. All these products cannot be as simple produced without oil. So it is essential that we for our need of energy, other means are necessary. Alternatives are natural gas, hydrogen and nuclear power.
Electricity
Electricity for example is a common source of energy. But unfortunatly electricity is merely a carrier of energy, and not a source of energy. Electricity can be obtained from all sorts of renewable sources (wind, water, sun) but as of today, a large proportion is still gained from just burning oil. Electricty is cheap to obtain, relatively safe to handle, can be transformed in all sorts of energy, but cannot be stored. We're not talking about a simple battery here. We're talking about large strategic reserves. Electricity cannot be transported over large distances. So all good things about electricity are valid as long as it can be produced hic et nunc. Production should be done by renewable sources, but for now we rely on other means.
Natural Gas
It is still abundant and can be simply burned to obtain electricity where needed. It is more dificult to handle, more difficult to store and more difficult to produce with, but it packs a lot of energy. It's emission from burning is not as poluting, but still much more than should be acceptable. All in all, I'd say that natural gas will remain a dominant source of energy for the next 100 years. But it too has it's limited sources.
Hydrogen
The gas has some serious advantages coupled with disadvantages. It can be obtained from plain water (for now it is produced from natural gas), so it's supply is endless. It packs a lot of energy and is absolutly not poluting because burning hydrogen with oxigen given plain water. The downside is that it too is difficult to store long term and difficult to handle.
Nuclear power
Nuclear fission, splitting atoms, provides around 25% of the global energy. It is cheap, easy to store, no green house gas emission, and packs tons of energy. But as we all know, it is dangerous to handle and it's waste products remain a long term hazard. Nonetheless, nuclear fission is still a reliable source of energy for the comming 100 years.
Nuclear fusion on the other hand, is a promissing technology. Unfortunatly, it's been promission for over 50 years now. Joining 2 hydrogen cores yields an enormous amount of energy. But today it requires more energy to initiate than energy released. A negative yield. If we could turn this around and produce more energy than that is consumed, there would be an endless source of energy that is not poluting, that packs a lot of energy, but lacks the versatility from oil as it suffers the same drawbacks because the energy carrier would be electricity.
Have we reached the pinnacle?
With no other sources that can replace oil, and oil is limited, does this mean we will soon face a downfall in the develeopment degree of our society? Yes and No. We have about 50 years time to turn the oil dependency into something else. And most probably it will be a mixture of all alternatives explained above. Is there any hope for a source of infite clean energy? Yes, that's the good thing.
The Future on Green Energy?
Personally I don't believe the future belongs to the renewable energy source, because simply put, we've already evolved beyond that. Our energy needs will only rise and cannot be matched by green energy alone. It would be fantastic if we pull it of, but I doubt that poorer developed countries will have the capacity to invest in these types of energy sources.
The Future on Technology?
We have been spoiled with all sort of technological advancements that we rely on the scientist to solve every problem. This naieve thinking is a bubble that has already bursted. When the first nuclear plants were erected, there was no plan for the nuclear waste. Yet everyone was confident that in the near future, a good solution would be found. Well, 50 years later, there is still nothing. The russians dump it in the deepests gorges in the ocean, other try to cover it with tons of earth. The problem remains, it is only replaced.
I do have hope!
Yet, there is one breakthrough that will give us the ideal world with renewable unlimited energy: superconductors. A superconductor material is a material where electricity flows freely without resistance. It creates flawless magnetic fields and can make electricity storage devices. In other words, it can overcome all the drawbacks from electricy. But it gets better. Who cares about a perfect carrier if you don't have the perfect source? Well, the perfect magnetic field of a superconductor can help in overcomming the nuclear fission yield problem. And thus we'll have unlimited source and carrier of energy. And the world population will explode, but that's another story.
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Society and Game Theory
The Game Theory
The Game Theory is an economic model that analyses the strategics interest of different parties, and try to apply this insight to real life market situation. By means of simple games, the strategy of the players on the market are modeled. In this article I will explain how this model can be applied to our society.
Example:
Let's try a simple example. You have the choice between A and B, and your competitor has the same strategic choice. If they know that both will win only when they both choose B and that they both will loose if both choose A, but that one will loose and one will win if either one choose A over B.
So as long as they both choose B they will win, but so does the competitor. If anyone deviates from the ideal strategy (B-B) then they will win as long as the competitor is not making the same choice, because then they end in the worst scenario where they both loose (A-A).
This might seem like some theoretical abstract thinking, but I'll give a real life example: Supermarket A and B need to decide what their product will be priced. If they both choose a high selling price, they both make more profit. If one chooses to lower the price, then he will make more profit because his competitor will not sell due to the higher price. If they both lower the price, they both equal sales, but at a lower profit. I admit that there are a whole lot of other factors involved, but you get the idea.
Nash Equilibrium.
The ideal situation that leads to a win-win situation is called the Nash Equilibrium. This equilibrium can only be reached if everyone cooperates to the ideal strategy. The moment someone deviates, this means profit only for the 'deviant'. I would like to apply this concept to our society and use it to define good and evil.
In Traffic:
A contemporary example would be one we all experienced, namely traffic jams. If one lane is blocked and 2 lanes need to join, there is an ideal strategy that will be beneficial for all, namely the controlled one after one joining in. As soon as one individual starts a slalom, he worses the situation for both lanes, except for himself
In General:
In our society we try as well as we can to maintain the accepted norms and conducts by creating and enforcing the law. We know that if we all adhere to the law, it makes life easier for all of us. If one individual commits a crime, this might be personal beneficial, but harming the society in return. The fundamental guidelines to keep a society intact are written down in all holy books, in all early works describing early civilisation. Religion has been a tool to enforce and maintain the common sense of acting good.
Good and Evil
We have the natural ability that our concience is adapting to the standards of Good and Evil. Which is, now that you read this article, nothing more than the ideal strategy vs the deviant. I would use the ideal strategy as the definition for Good, the acts that are benficial to the whole group, in the long term, if we all cooperate. Evil would then be defined by the deviant strategy, where one individual chooses not to follow the law, benefitting from short term and personal gain.
Anarchy
However, I also think that the ideal strategy is not so much imbedded in our human nature. Once the law enforcement fails, we see that society quickly detoriate into anarchy, meaning the loss-loss situation for all. Common sources of sudden detoriation in civilized societies are dramatic events such as natural disasters, war, etc. Although we all know that behaving like deviants, will negatively affect all, we, as humans, choose this strategy as soon as law enforcement ceases. This leads me to beleave that we, as a human race, are not yet civilized. We merely know how to enforce and maintain civilization.
Development
Are we then no better than animals? Probably yes, but possibly no. Nature has learned, especially for lesser life forms, that acting according the ideal strategy is the only way to be succesfull. Ants or bees will sacrifice themselves without hesitation if it serves the community. In fact, it is their great evolutionary success. Therefore we could question if our urge to search the edge of morally aceptable deeds is due to our higher form of development. Are primitive organism better capable of cooperation, of following the ideal strategy? Is it a trade off? develop ourselves as individuals and then fall as a society?
The Game Theory is an economic model that analyses the strategics interest of different parties, and try to apply this insight to real life market situation. By means of simple games, the strategy of the players on the market are modeled. In this article I will explain how this model can be applied to our society.
Example:
Let's try a simple example. You have the choice between A and B, and your competitor has the same strategic choice. If they know that both will win only when they both choose B and that they both will loose if both choose A, but that one will loose and one will win if either one choose A over B.
| Player | A | B |
| A | loss/loss | win/loss |
| B | loss/win | win/win |
So as long as they both choose B they will win, but so does the competitor. If anyone deviates from the ideal strategy (B-B) then they will win as long as the competitor is not making the same choice, because then they end in the worst scenario where they both loose (A-A).
This might seem like some theoretical abstract thinking, but I'll give a real life example: Supermarket A and B need to decide what their product will be priced. If they both choose a high selling price, they both make more profit. If one chooses to lower the price, then he will make more profit because his competitor will not sell due to the higher price. If they both lower the price, they both equal sales, but at a lower profit. I admit that there are a whole lot of other factors involved, but you get the idea.
Nash Equilibrium.
The ideal situation that leads to a win-win situation is called the Nash Equilibrium. This equilibrium can only be reached if everyone cooperates to the ideal strategy. The moment someone deviates, this means profit only for the 'deviant'. I would like to apply this concept to our society and use it to define good and evil.
In Traffic:
A contemporary example would be one we all experienced, namely traffic jams. If one lane is blocked and 2 lanes need to join, there is an ideal strategy that will be beneficial for all, namely the controlled one after one joining in. As soon as one individual starts a slalom, he worses the situation for both lanes, except for himself
In General:
In our society we try as well as we can to maintain the accepted norms and conducts by creating and enforcing the law. We know that if we all adhere to the law, it makes life easier for all of us. If one individual commits a crime, this might be personal beneficial, but harming the society in return. The fundamental guidelines to keep a society intact are written down in all holy books, in all early works describing early civilisation. Religion has been a tool to enforce and maintain the common sense of acting good.
Good and Evil
We have the natural ability that our concience is adapting to the standards of Good and Evil. Which is, now that you read this article, nothing more than the ideal strategy vs the deviant. I would use the ideal strategy as the definition for Good, the acts that are benficial to the whole group, in the long term, if we all cooperate. Evil would then be defined by the deviant strategy, where one individual chooses not to follow the law, benefitting from short term and personal gain.
Anarchy
However, I also think that the ideal strategy is not so much imbedded in our human nature. Once the law enforcement fails, we see that society quickly detoriate into anarchy, meaning the loss-loss situation for all. Common sources of sudden detoriation in civilized societies are dramatic events such as natural disasters, war, etc. Although we all know that behaving like deviants, will negatively affect all, we, as humans, choose this strategy as soon as law enforcement ceases. This leads me to beleave that we, as a human race, are not yet civilized. We merely know how to enforce and maintain civilization.
Development
Are we then no better than animals? Probably yes, but possibly no. Nature has learned, especially for lesser life forms, that acting according the ideal strategy is the only way to be succesfull. Ants or bees will sacrifice themselves without hesitation if it serves the community. In fact, it is their great evolutionary success. Therefore we could question if our urge to search the edge of morally aceptable deeds is due to our higher form of development. Are primitive organism better capable of cooperation, of following the ideal strategy? Is it a trade off? develop ourselves as individuals and then fall as a society?
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
This is where I work
Sometimes it's just not true
Most of the time you try to be truthfull, but sometimes you just can't help to exagerate a tad. Especially if you can't really compete. I'm sure that most of you have a fancy office. But that's nothing compared to mine. I'm sure you've met those braggers. Well, now I got myself something to brag about as well:
Nice memories
Don't you just hate those that start randomly spamming stories about how great this or that was. And then you find yourself dumbfounded as you can't come up with something nearly as nice? Well yes. I have experienced that, but no more. I always have a back up story ready in these cases. More often than not I start telling how I was invited with the big shots to an exotic paradise for a team dinner where they congratulated me and sent me off to my favourite site.
Most of the time you try to be truthfull, but sometimes you just can't help to exagerate a tad. Especially if you can't really compete. I'm sure that most of you have a fancy office. But that's nothing compared to mine. I'm sure you've met those braggers. Well, now I got myself something to brag about as well:
Don't you just hate those that start randomly spamming stories about how great this or that was. And then you find yourself dumbfounded as you can't come up with something nearly as nice? Well yes. I have experienced that, but no more. I always have a back up story ready in these cases. More often than not I start telling how I was invited with the big shots to an exotic paradise for a team dinner where they congratulated me and sent me off to my favourite site.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Excellent Map Generator
Create a whole Island with a click
For those that are interested in world building projects or are just looking for inspiration for their next RPG campaign, I found the right tool here. It randomly generates polygons that are transformed into biomes, depending on altitude and moisture. Surprisingly, you can find volcanos, ice lakes and swamps, but more often just a nice island with a central mountain and grassland/forests below.
More importantly is the ability to shape the island randomly. I used the Radial and Perlin randomisers to give a wide and exciting shapes of islands. The Square and Blob shapes are too limited. Almost never you'd find a square island (or continent for that matter) a realistic build.
The Views
Remarkable Examples
Perlin seed 51808-8 gives a continent with large lake inland. Strange enough, the lake connects to the ocean via 3 rivers. It cetainly is an interesting landmass if you consider this particular build.
For those that are interested in world building projects or are just looking for inspiration for their next RPG campaign, I found the right tool here. It randomly generates polygons that are transformed into biomes, depending on altitude and moisture. Surprisingly, you can find volcanos, ice lakes and swamps, but more often just a nice island with a central mountain and grassland/forests below.
 |
| Radial 2D view |
Shape parameter
The Views
Biomes and Smooth shows the island without it's polygons and with a bit of blur. I like the Smooth view the most as it feels the most map-like.
2D slopes transforms the polygons into rendering height in 2D scale. It gives a very nice look to the whole map. It's only drawback are the sharp edges that may work on mountains, but not on rolling hills. The 3D slopes are even more impressive, and it makes the island rotate. It suffers the same drawback as the 2D slope.
What is trully amazing in this nifty widget is the ability to view it elevation and moisture in colorcode, but more importantly the watersheds in a polygon view. This view enables you to determine wich regions contribute to which rivers. Impressive feature. Remarkable Examples
Perlin seed 51808-8 gives a continent with large lake inland. Strange enough, the lake connects to the ocean via 3 rivers. It cetainly is an interesting landmass if you consider this particular build.If you let my imagination run wild, I see a world with many watertribesn with their respective strongholds around their connecting rivers.
In the snowy mountains some kind if disaster can unfold (heavy rain/snow, no snow at all, polluted snow, etc...) so that the lake is rising/lowering/poisoned.
Another example I'd like to share is the Perlin 76151-8, which has the particular set up of a snowed mountain side to side with a volcano. On the other side of the bay lies a peacefull forrest nation, while on the main continent the forces of good (united under the snow mountain) are in conflict with the forces of evil (united under the volcano). Not only the inhabitants are fighting eachother, also the geological terrain tries to conquer the other by means of thunderstorms (snow mountain) and lava flows (volcano). Unsurprising, you would see soldiers with a lighting mark fight those with a fire mark.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
How the world of fantasy has evolved and gave us superheros.
The world of Fantasy
You could say that fantasy has always existed. Mostly to escape their miserable situation, sometimes just for fun. But while the imagined fiction is loosly based on the structures as in real life, the creator lets his imagination run wild and creates a world that is inconceivable in the real world. In the ancient times, stories about Gods and Demigods, Heros and Legends and lots of local lore were traditional material. These stories were based on even older ones, adding each time new and exciting powers to the agonists. Our modern western fantasy fiction seems to be based on the medieval times, romanticized into a world of brave knights and princesses. Different genres includes these architypes, ranging from roll playing games, video games, movies, graphic novels, fantasy fiction, etc.
A Hero like we all are
But typical for the postmodernistic era we live in, is the melting pot of influences so that nothing is really invented. What is merely done is mixing different styles or influences because the wide spread information makes it possible to taste all sorts of lore that was preserved. We seem to have no trouble mixing the brave knight from the medieval times with the werewolf from the victorian times toghether with a ninja from feudal Japan. But one thing that we have severly upgraded is their powers. In all the legends, the heros are common people that perform extraordinary feats due to their legendary bravery or cunning. The catch is that everyone in the audience can identify himself with these protagonist and continue the dream at home in the all too familiar 'what if' scenario.
Adding Superpowers
What the ancient greeks were good at is inventing supernatural powers. The same sort of powers return in the Viking mythology. It is impossible for the common man to throw lightning, create storms at sea or fly around. But these were gods. Or Demigods. Supernatural powers for supernatural beings. Now in our individualistic society, we no longer have that connection with the supernatural beings as most of the western religions (christianity, judeïsm, islam) have only one true god. The next step is rather obvious, just give the superpower to the common folks, and a hero is instantly created. Just take John Doe. One day he discovers he can create flames at will. Bam. Superhero born.
Weak reasons, weak motivation, but it looks Cool.To make the story catching, all sorts of silly motives or origins have been invented. None of them works ofcourse and asks a great empathy from the viewer/listener. Falling in a barrel of nuclear waste as a kid, will under no circumstances give you the ability to fly. Or cast lighting. Or crawl around like a spider. Or whatever. Nonetheless are we more than willing to follow the hero on his heroic quest, more often involving a love story as well. All this together signals -to me at least- that the hero with the superpower is a shallow creature, reduced to his power. To counter this, archvillains are created that are even more powerfull, dramatic love stories, all that to show a vulnarable hero, always going through some sort of crisis. But this is all a veil to cover the real identity of the hero: a common man with supernatural powers that look Cool. Up to you if you go home and continue the dream, but I prefer the common man who performs an heroic act out of bravery, necessity or, you know, plot. Because I am a common man. We all are.
You could say that fantasy has always existed. Mostly to escape their miserable situation, sometimes just for fun. But while the imagined fiction is loosly based on the structures as in real life, the creator lets his imagination run wild and creates a world that is inconceivable in the real world. In the ancient times, stories about Gods and Demigods, Heros and Legends and lots of local lore were traditional material. These stories were based on even older ones, adding each time new and exciting powers to the agonists. Our modern western fantasy fiction seems to be based on the medieval times, romanticized into a world of brave knights and princesses. Different genres includes these architypes, ranging from roll playing games, video games, movies, graphic novels, fantasy fiction, etc.
A Hero like we all are
But typical for the postmodernistic era we live in, is the melting pot of influences so that nothing is really invented. What is merely done is mixing different styles or influences because the wide spread information makes it possible to taste all sorts of lore that was preserved. We seem to have no trouble mixing the brave knight from the medieval times with the werewolf from the victorian times toghether with a ninja from feudal Japan. But one thing that we have severly upgraded is their powers. In all the legends, the heros are common people that perform extraordinary feats due to their legendary bravery or cunning. The catch is that everyone in the audience can identify himself with these protagonist and continue the dream at home in the all too familiar 'what if' scenario.
Adding Superpowers
What the ancient greeks were good at is inventing supernatural powers. The same sort of powers return in the Viking mythology. It is impossible for the common man to throw lightning, create storms at sea or fly around. But these were gods. Or Demigods. Supernatural powers for supernatural beings. Now in our individualistic society, we no longer have that connection with the supernatural beings as most of the western religions (christianity, judeïsm, islam) have only one true god. The next step is rather obvious, just give the superpower to the common folks, and a hero is instantly created. Just take John Doe. One day he discovers he can create flames at will. Bam. Superhero born.
Weak reasons, weak motivation, but it looks Cool.To make the story catching, all sorts of silly motives or origins have been invented. None of them works ofcourse and asks a great empathy from the viewer/listener. Falling in a barrel of nuclear waste as a kid, will under no circumstances give you the ability to fly. Or cast lighting. Or crawl around like a spider. Or whatever. Nonetheless are we more than willing to follow the hero on his heroic quest, more often involving a love story as well. All this together signals -to me at least- that the hero with the superpower is a shallow creature, reduced to his power. To counter this, archvillains are created that are even more powerfull, dramatic love stories, all that to show a vulnarable hero, always going through some sort of crisis. But this is all a veil to cover the real identity of the hero: a common man with supernatural powers that look Cool. Up to you if you go home and continue the dream, but I prefer the common man who performs an heroic act out of bravery, necessity or, you know, plot. Because I am a common man. We all are.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
Why are all good things bad?
Fat is so Sweet
All good things in life come with a kickback. I like to rest in my backyard for a while, but before you know it, you're applying either sunblock or aftersun. Why would anyone create this world where every temptation kicks like a mule when you expect it the least? What is the irony of making us weakwilled against the good things in life? I cannot believe there would be a creator so cynic to create such a world. The only remaining option would be the inherent human weakness for bad things. And apparently we are all just the same. We like to eat a nice piece of fried food, but then we get fat and die our heart out. We like to do sports, but then we get an injury that drops us back at condition zero. Even love is blind. And fat is sweet.
It is a Test!
I heard a nice angle on this topic. Our creator is testing us. Only if we can resist the temptations, we will live happily. Now, that is the biggest heap of feaces I've ever heard. Firstly because I don't believe in our creator, but more importantly because we don't need to be tested. Being tested the whole live, leaves no room for a normal way of live. Imagine a student that has to take exams every single day of his life. There would be no room for anything else. In short, if you believe it is a test, then the creator is putting us in a threadmill and shuts us out of any purpose. And I refuse to believe that. If you have a pet, or even a child you love very much, you are not doing it a favour by constantly putting it to the test.
You are wrong because we are not constantly in temptation!
Ofcourse we are, you silly. In the Eastern religion they figured that out way before they did in the West. Buddism focusses on throwing off any distraction, and the emphasis lies soley on self deployment through inner calm. Did you not read the first paragraph? Everything we like has a drawback. It is the story of our live until we die. That is the reassuring endnote of our journey. Whatever we do, our ending is the same. Be it more painfull physical or emotional for some than for others. The whole point i'm making is that the balancing act between good and bad is what keeps us awake. You need the down moments to enjoy the up moments. You enjoy a cold drink more in the summer than in the winter. Even love brings us to such heights (and debts), only to enjoy the happy moments. That is what I believe is in our nature. But that doesn't explain why the world around us seems to behave the same way.
The Good, the Bad and the Sin
We know in our heart that we will repend some actions, even before we take them. Jumping of that cliff is going to hurt you one way or another, yet you take the plunge and enjoy every second before contact. Religion has tought about this as well, and gave it the label 'Sin'. A clever mechanism to show us that whatever challange we take, we should be aware that it can lead to side effects. Therefore I suggest that as of today I will no longer reflect my actions upfront. If I'm doing the right thing, and enjoy my life in moderation, then I'm passing the test every single day. I will not know that I've lived, but at least I will not be kicked by a mule.
All good things in life come with a kickback. I like to rest in my backyard for a while, but before you know it, you're applying either sunblock or aftersun. Why would anyone create this world where every temptation kicks like a mule when you expect it the least? What is the irony of making us weakwilled against the good things in life? I cannot believe there would be a creator so cynic to create such a world. The only remaining option would be the inherent human weakness for bad things. And apparently we are all just the same. We like to eat a nice piece of fried food, but then we get fat and die our heart out. We like to do sports, but then we get an injury that drops us back at condition zero. Even love is blind. And fat is sweet.
It is a Test!
I heard a nice angle on this topic. Our creator is testing us. Only if we can resist the temptations, we will live happily. Now, that is the biggest heap of feaces I've ever heard. Firstly because I don't believe in our creator, but more importantly because we don't need to be tested. Being tested the whole live, leaves no room for a normal way of live. Imagine a student that has to take exams every single day of his life. There would be no room for anything else. In short, if you believe it is a test, then the creator is putting us in a threadmill and shuts us out of any purpose. And I refuse to believe that. If you have a pet, or even a child you love very much, you are not doing it a favour by constantly putting it to the test.
You are wrong because we are not constantly in temptation!
Ofcourse we are, you silly. In the Eastern religion they figured that out way before they did in the West. Buddism focusses on throwing off any distraction, and the emphasis lies soley on self deployment through inner calm. Did you not read the first paragraph? Everything we like has a drawback. It is the story of our live until we die. That is the reassuring endnote of our journey. Whatever we do, our ending is the same. Be it more painfull physical or emotional for some than for others. The whole point i'm making is that the balancing act between good and bad is what keeps us awake. You need the down moments to enjoy the up moments. You enjoy a cold drink more in the summer than in the winter. Even love brings us to such heights (and debts), only to enjoy the happy moments. That is what I believe is in our nature. But that doesn't explain why the world around us seems to behave the same way.
The Good, the Bad and the Sin
We know in our heart that we will repend some actions, even before we take them. Jumping of that cliff is going to hurt you one way or another, yet you take the plunge and enjoy every second before contact. Religion has tought about this as well, and gave it the label 'Sin'. A clever mechanism to show us that whatever challange we take, we should be aware that it can lead to side effects. Therefore I suggest that as of today I will no longer reflect my actions upfront. If I'm doing the right thing, and enjoy my life in moderation, then I'm passing the test every single day. I will not know that I've lived, but at least I will not be kicked by a mule.
Thursday, 24 March 2011
The Four Types of Fantasy players
The Fantasy Consumer is an Escapist.
Wheter you are reading a book, watching a movie or playing a game, chances are that you are doing this merely to enjoy yourself. In this brief moment of distraction, you can emerge yourself in another worlds, away from the daily worries. No need to feel guilty. This behaviour can be translated as well into 'caveman tells stories around the campfire'. It is in our nature to entertain and be entertained. Life is complicated enough not to. Sharing this general feeling of escaping the daily life, we seek different aspects in our escape. Not all like to watch violent or horror movies. Some like to raise a happy little family as well. In this article I'll focus on the ones that play fantasy games since those have the greatest potential of escaping into a completely different world. Nonetheless, we are still human, and human traits are therefore incorporated in the gameplay, resulting into 4 different types of players.
The Explorer, Seeker of new Stimuli.
This type of player loves to emerge himself in the newly created world. His empathy with his avatar or the protagonist is intens. He likes to explore the world and establish an profound feeling of knowledge about it. But once familiar with the new grounds, he moves onwards to new horizons. This constantly changing of enviroment keeps the interest and this type of player will enjoy every expansion or sequal. The joy comes from new stimuli, new stories, new local lore.
The Gatherer, Collector of Gear and Achievements.
This player loves to gather resources, trade, commerce and gains satisfaction when he finds a bargain on the ingame economy. Always striving for new, better, upgraded gear, the gatherer is the type of player that will never settle for suboptimal gear. Quests, set by the game will be completed, and if all ingame content is completed, he will set out goals for himself. All possible achievements will be hunted. Although the character progression is not hampered, the goal is set by himself. These type of players usually analyse the game itself to break the mathematics behind the scene. They are willing to break out the fantasy and create spreadsheet with numbers, only to find the optimal strategy or gear. These players often abandon the game wealthy, but unsatisfied when some challanges are too big to overcome to obtain that last, rare item they do not possess yet or an achievement that seems impossible to obtain.
The Socialiser, Finder of Friends
The Socialiser is the least escapist of the four, since they use the game as a tool to get social relations. Helping out new players, pointing beginners to the right direction and always participating in ingame societies (call them guilds, or clans, or...). That does not exclude them from enjoying the game, as their roll as nestor can only be fullfilled if they possess the necessary knowledge themselves. They will sacrifies their own benefit for the greater good, and have a strong feeling of accomplishment if the group can pass certain goals. They will sacrifies their personal time to help other and be often dissapointed when help is not appreciated or taken advantage of.
The PVPer, Fighter of other Players.
The PVPer (or player versus player) will measure it's performance not by the achievement, their social status or the story, but from his ranking among his peers. He will and enjoys engaging in combat against other human players and finds a great deal of satisfaction when he can beat them. The Gatherer has better gear, and will try to measure up against the PVPer, but will loose, fueling both in their goals. The fantasy world serves as a platform to deploy his skills, not to explore or quench his interest in lore. He will continue to improve his tactics and his character in order to achieve the number 1 in the ranking.
But I recognize myself in all 4 categories!
Don't be so cocky, ofcourse you are a mix of the four. I'm not preaching international truth here. The main point is that while we enjoy leaving our sorrows behind and dive into another world, we maintain our characteristics. You have the opportunity to play or identify yourself with a character that is completely opposite of you in real life, but the way we enjoy the game is always ties to our person. You could be shy and introvert, but play a social character which means that, in fact, you are more social than you'd expect. Deep down inside, you cannot hide yourself and maybe identifying your playing style tells more about yourself than the game.
Wheter you are reading a book, watching a movie or playing a game, chances are that you are doing this merely to enjoy yourself. In this brief moment of distraction, you can emerge yourself in another worlds, away from the daily worries. No need to feel guilty. This behaviour can be translated as well into 'caveman tells stories around the campfire'. It is in our nature to entertain and be entertained. Life is complicated enough not to. Sharing this general feeling of escaping the daily life, we seek different aspects in our escape. Not all like to watch violent or horror movies. Some like to raise a happy little family as well. In this article I'll focus on the ones that play fantasy games since those have the greatest potential of escaping into a completely different world. Nonetheless, we are still human, and human traits are therefore incorporated in the gameplay, resulting into 4 different types of players.
The Explorer, Seeker of new Stimuli.
This type of player loves to emerge himself in the newly created world. His empathy with his avatar or the protagonist is intens. He likes to explore the world and establish an profound feeling of knowledge about it. But once familiar with the new grounds, he moves onwards to new horizons. This constantly changing of enviroment keeps the interest and this type of player will enjoy every expansion or sequal. The joy comes from new stimuli, new stories, new local lore.
The Gatherer, Collector of Gear and Achievements.
This player loves to gather resources, trade, commerce and gains satisfaction when he finds a bargain on the ingame economy. Always striving for new, better, upgraded gear, the gatherer is the type of player that will never settle for suboptimal gear. Quests, set by the game will be completed, and if all ingame content is completed, he will set out goals for himself. All possible achievements will be hunted. Although the character progression is not hampered, the goal is set by himself. These type of players usually analyse the game itself to break the mathematics behind the scene. They are willing to break out the fantasy and create spreadsheet with numbers, only to find the optimal strategy or gear. These players often abandon the game wealthy, but unsatisfied when some challanges are too big to overcome to obtain that last, rare item they do not possess yet or an achievement that seems impossible to obtain.
The Socialiser, Finder of Friends
The Socialiser is the least escapist of the four, since they use the game as a tool to get social relations. Helping out new players, pointing beginners to the right direction and always participating in ingame societies (call them guilds, or clans, or...). That does not exclude them from enjoying the game, as their roll as nestor can only be fullfilled if they possess the necessary knowledge themselves. They will sacrifies their own benefit for the greater good, and have a strong feeling of accomplishment if the group can pass certain goals. They will sacrifies their personal time to help other and be often dissapointed when help is not appreciated or taken advantage of.
The PVPer, Fighter of other Players.
The PVPer (or player versus player) will measure it's performance not by the achievement, their social status or the story, but from his ranking among his peers. He will and enjoys engaging in combat against other human players and finds a great deal of satisfaction when he can beat them. The Gatherer has better gear, and will try to measure up against the PVPer, but will loose, fueling both in their goals. The fantasy world serves as a platform to deploy his skills, not to explore or quench his interest in lore. He will continue to improve his tactics and his character in order to achieve the number 1 in the ranking.
But I recognize myself in all 4 categories!
Don't be so cocky, ofcourse you are a mix of the four. I'm not preaching international truth here. The main point is that while we enjoy leaving our sorrows behind and dive into another world, we maintain our characteristics. You have the opportunity to play or identify yourself with a character that is completely opposite of you in real life, but the way we enjoy the game is always ties to our person. You could be shy and introvert, but play a social character which means that, in fact, you are more social than you'd expect. Deep down inside, you cannot hide yourself and maybe identifying your playing style tells more about yourself than the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)