Martian landscapes

A set of images in the Boston Globe hints at the splendors of our neighbor. Again the question pops up: Why aren't we there yet? What are we waiting for?

He's Russian, so he should know a thing or two about the topic

If you are just overwhelmed by the information about Fukushima or were just woken from your hibernation chamber (because the final days are here, and They need your unique powers and expertise in this dark time), I recommend the short, concise look at nuclear melt-downs by Dmitri Orlov.

Security is not what you think it is

2011 shapes up to be quite an interesting year: The – still ongoing – revolutions in North Africa and the Middle East make for a furious first act, followed by a short comic interlude by German ex-defense minister, ex-PhD Guttenberg. Then the large quake in Japan, the tsunami, and now…this.

This leads me to the following observation. Security, as some clever people have remarked, is not an objective state, but simply a statement about risk – of the probability of something breaking down. “Security” just means that the probability of badness happening is low enough that you can live with the consequences of the badness. But the chance of failure will never drop to zero – in any system. Thus, talking about the “absolute safety” of any system is not a technical statement, but an ideological fallacy. This fallacy is mostly based on the assumption that one can cover all angles of a project (and that means all angles, with some kind of godlike vision and understanding), that everyone involved will always do a perfect job because no one will be tired, angry, stupid, proud, distracted, distraught or greedy - ever. In short: The project will be executed by perfect men. Regrettably, one of them is in a chained up in a basement in Johannesburg (for obvious reasons), while the other refuses to speak to people until he has counted all grains of sand on a certain beach in Mexico (also for obvious reasons).

In most circumstances, perceiving a risk which is "close enough to zero" as "equal to zero" can be quite useful, even necessary. This shift enables us to leave the house, to cross streets, buy groceries, ride bikes without worrying too much, even if the risk of badness happening are far from zero. But if the consequences of badness happening approach some kind of absoluteness themselves (this country is closed to humans until further notice) it is time to have a hard look at the fallacy of "close to zero equals zero" - and those who try to sell it to us.

Is it safe to come out now?

Geeks rule the modern world, for all that's worth. And they got their education rolling dice, at least that's what Ethan Gilsdorf thinks, in his eulogy of D&D and its nostalgic resurgence. A long read.

Some new GURPS disadvantages

I built some new characters during the weekend, and again I felt the pull of certain disad-combos: "Just take Bloodlust, Curious and Impulsive and you're good to go." More variety might be nice. While many disadvantages can be modeled by compulsive behaviors, I think that some closer definitions for certain kinds of attitude might be useful. With that in mind, I sat down and penned some new disads for my favorite game system. They will also be posted in the scorched earth materials, because these bad boys are now house official.

Aggressive* (-15 points)

You seek out conflict for its own sake. You are only happy in a fight – whether with words, fists or guns depends on your cultural background. You are not automatically a bully: You seek opponents, not victims. But if no worthy antagonists are around, you’ll do your best (or worst) to create some. But whoever you are: You only feel alive in a fight. You’ll never lack enemies, but your life will never be boring – it is like being a trickster, but tends to hurt a lot more. Roll every day, unless you’re still hurting from your last fight in some physical or abstract manner.

Dogmatic* (-5 points)

You are right, you know it and you have let the whole world know. This compulsive behavior afflicts religious people, scientists working in obscure fields, computer security people and probably everyone who was always selected last for a softball team in school. If you know somebody is wrong or does miss some information about a problem - even if it is completely trivial – you will tell him. This includes nobles and managers far above your station, belligerent drunks and murderous psychopaths teetering on the brink of a killing spree. Most people react to you at -1, even if they do profit from your information.

In Need of Harmony* (-5 points)

You cannot stand disputes. All that arguing makes your stomach hurt, so you keep your counsel and just go with the proposition of the leader – or the loudest member of the group. This is true even if you have a marvelous, foolproof plan worked out. This is basically the opposite of stubbornness. Some people think you are a pushover and react at -1, others like your soft-spoken, pliable nature.

Moral Coward* (-5 points)

“It is curious - curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare”. You would never endanger your social standing or your career. You’d rather look on while a village is torched than risk your chance at making colonel by speaking up. You keep your mouth shut while your company dumps carcinogenic waste in a playground for blind orphans, because you would be fired, and you can’t bear the thought of what the neighbors would say then. You will happily risk life and limb at various occasions, but being looked down upon…being an outsider…would be too much to bear. The disadvantage is rather cheap, as it will get you into hot water only very rarely.

Perfectionist* (-5 points)

Good is not good enough. In long term projects, especially those with an aesthetic component, you always look for a more elegant solution, something that has that certain je ne sais quoi. “Workable” or “quite alright” are insults to your sense of perfection. In game terms, you will retry a skill roll for any test if you are not at least -1 under your effective skill – unless someone stops you in time. This only applies to non-combat tests with no clear solution. While a lock is open when it is open, a text can always be rewritten, a mule can be re-packed, a thesis can undergo many, many changes until it finally captures the pure essence of your research…

Slipshod* (-5 points)

You hate to work too hard, and you know that a barely working solution is often good enough. Like the perfectionist disadvantage, slipshod only applies to non-combat tests with no clear solution or success, like writing, forgery, some kinds of research, building something or creating art. If the disadvantage becomes active, the GM makes your respective success rolls in secret. If you fail by a margin of 2 or less, he will tell you that you succeeded – your character thinks that his solution might be sloppy, but still “good enough”. Of course, most other people will be of a different opinion, or your work might just fall apart at an inopportune moment. Many people, especially professionals in the field insulted by your slapdash effort, react to slipshod work at -1 or worse.

Absolutist* (-5 points)

You tend to see people in black and white. Your friends are faultless beings of pure light, while your antagonists (and exes, and former employers) should all be lined up against a wall and shot. The psychological term for your attitude is “splitting”, and it means that if your opinion about someone changes due to some development or other, it will change by 180 degrees. While some of your allies like your unquestioning support, your absolute swings in opinion will disconcert many people – and by all means those who were shuffled from your good to your bad side.

Why do movies suck so bad (at the moment)?

Obviously not all movies of the last year suck: Just the last two months, we were graced by movies like Black Swan and True Grit. But the mass of movies seem to be terrible, terrible comedies, films about young vampires and sequels of sequels. Why is that? Mark Harris has the (longish) answer at GQ, of all places. It's the perfect storm of demographics and marketing, and although the usual suspects crop up, the (no-longer-)cinema-going public is also to blame.

Kaputtenberg

KT von und zu Guttenberg is no longer our defense minister; in no time, we will be overrun by dastardly Frenchmen who have only waited for this moment. What we've learned: Don't mess with science, even if you have BILD in your corner. The taz has a nice overview on the net's reactions to KT's flame-out.