The president is expected to approve a bill today mandating that every rock in the United States larger than 1 cubic inch be painted teal. The so called “Nancy” bill is the brainchild of Nancy Fredrick, a Wisconsin resident who herself was the victim of poor lawn aesthetics. “This bill has given my life meaning for the past two years. Maybe because of our work here, people will no longer have to suffer through long rides through boring gray countryside.”

A provision in the bill has allotted a significant amount of federal funding to the project. Senator Don Williamson, the senior senator from Georgia and chairmen of the senate appropriations committee, is one of the most vocal proponents of the bill. “With an estimated 100,000,000 qualifying rocks in the U.S. and an average cost of government grade teal paint at $20 per rock, this bill represents a significant expenditure. However, we believe that the long term benefits of our plan are well worth the costs. Not only will the money spent on paint come right back into the economy, but the aesthetic improvement to the landscape will have inestimable value to our country.”

An earlier draft of the bill failed to make it through the House just 4 months ago. It called for every rock to be painted green, a stipulation that gained almost unanimous support among the Democrats, but failed to win over even the most liberal Republicans who were united in the support of the color blue. However, just three weeks ago, another draft was created which instead proposed the color teal, equal parts green and blue. This revision of the “Nancy” bill achieved strong bi-partisan support. “I’m proud that people from both sides of the table could come together to make this country stronger” says Senator Williamson.

Though the government has allocated funding to reimburse its citizens 100% of the cost of paint, private property owners are still responsible for getting each rock painted and ensuring that the color remains fresh and bright. Another provision in the bill calls for stiff penalties if property owners fail to color rocks on their property. It recommends a penalty of between 5 and 35 years in prison, depending on number of rocks, the size of the rocks, and the number of people who would see those rocks per day on average. Senator Williamson is sympathetic but unwavering on this point. “We realize that these penalties seem harsh at first, but prospect of not having every rock painted teal is far more loathsome then the prospect of a few troublemakers cooling their heels in our adequate federal prison system.”

A new arm of the executive branch will be created in order to enforce these rock regulations called the Rock Coloration Enforcement Agency (RCEA). It will be given “broad sweeping powers to enforce the national policy on rock coloration and conformity”. Though the initial cost of paint should only be approximately $2 billion, the RCEA will have an annual budget of roughly $3.8 billion, nearly double the one time expenditure of the rock paint. The agency will be authorized to monitor any property which contains rocks using any and all forms of surveillance at its disposal. Joe Hathman, the defacto director of the RCEA, attempts to put citizens’ minds at ease: “Yes, we will know everything about your properties, lives, and your comings and goings. However, rest assured that if you’re not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear from us. Moreover there are only two mechanisms by which third parties can get access to that information. First is through a security breach, but those won’t happen more than once year. Second is through a private sale of your information, and I can personally guarantee that those will only happen for absolute top dollar. Your information is safe in our hands.” This has proven to be the most controversial provision of the final draft and initially provoked the outrage of a few dozen congressmen and senators. However, the detractors of this provision have recently fallen silent and have mostly chosen to abstain rather than have their “no” vote recorded.

ERA (Earned Run Average) is one of the most common metrics of a pitcher’s individual performance. It is defined as the number of earned runs per 9 innings. In others, a pitcher who gives up 1 run an inning will have an ERA of 9. By way of reference, an ERA below 4 is good, and an ERA below 3 is excellent. An ERA above 5 is bad. An ERA of 9 is beyond bad - it would be among the worst in baseball history.

A guy, let’s call him Neil

Our hypothetic dude ‘Neil’ is a major league relief pitcher. He consistently gives up exactly one earned run every complete inning he pitches. This gives him an ERA of 9.00. By one of the most common metrics we have, Neil is awful, possibly the worst pitcher in the history of baseball. However, such a pitcher would be one of the most respected and feared assets in baseball. Anytime his team reaches a state where their lead (in runs) exceeds the the number of innings remaining to be played, Neil can earn them an automatic win. As a side note, Neil would never actually earn a win for himself if used this way.

Mitigating Factors

There are a few minor problems with this hypothetical. First, it doesn’t account for unearned runs. Though, these are comparatively rare on even a mediocre defensive team, so I feel justified in ignoring them. Secondly, it doesn’t account for inherited runs - this is why I specified “complete innings”. Thirdly, he likely will have at least one decent looking statistic: saves. The majority of his appearances would almost certainly be save situations, and if used properly, he would never blow a save.

Making a Statistic to Capture Consistency

Admittedly, such a statistic might exist without me knowing. However, if one doesn’t exist, I propose it should. A naive approach would be to use the standard deviation of ERA/Game. The main issue is that it’s a hassle to calculate in that it requires individual game data.

Misconceptions During the Golden Years

At the time, there was a prevailing opinion that the Internet would allow fringe politics, science, and art to thrive where it once merely existed. Based on the empirical data, this seemed to be true; the majority of politics, science, and art on the Internet at the time was indeed more fringe [or at least bleeding edge]. In retrospect, this was certainly just an indication of the active online population’s demographics. We can see now that the Internet merely helps propagate the same popular culture *faster*. Fringe ideas have once again been relegated to the metaphorical dark corners.

Also at this time, many online folk bemoaned the fact that there weren’t more people online, perhaps assuming that the next wave of people would be of the same caliber. Many went so far as to wish for “everybody” to be online. Of course, this was absolute folly, a confusion of the cause and the effect. Specifically, the underlying misconception was that the Internet could transform a Mundane into an Excellent Person. The disappointing fact was that the Internet was full of Excellent People merely because only Excellent People liked the Internet. Mundanes who went online remained mundane.

Examples of the Internet’s Downfall

Perhaps the saddest example of the watered down internet is IMDb. The IMDb “Top 250″ was once upon a time one of the finest examples of Internet collaboration. Based on aggregate user reviews from 1-10 (but with certain unlisted statistical transformations to remove outliers), the list was truly a revelation for me. Having always found the “critics” to be unreliable, public opinion to be less reliable, and the “Oscars” (or Golden Globes) to be an absolute sham, I was always at a loss for how to locate a good movie. The Top 250 was absolutely amazing - never had I encountered any kind of cinematic compendium that so accurately predicted quality cinema for me. I didn’t always like the movies personally, but I could always understand why the movie was great. It’s downfall was almost so slow that I didn’t notice it. At first, mediocre sequels would enter the list at ludicrously high rankings, but slowly fall back to earth. I didn’t mind that IMDb would succumb at first to the popular hysteria, as long as each movie stabilized at the proper place. However, I began to notice that the movies were drifting less quickly to a more appropriate location, and in some cases, had completely stabilized at an altogether inappropriate location. The perfect example is “The Dark Knight”. This was a truly excellent movie with top notch acting, a large budget, and even better box office sales. I have absolutely nothing against it. However, it is *Not* the 7th best movie of all time (the current IMDb ranking at the time of this writing). Surely, any movie buff can think of 100 movies that should be higher - Fight Club, Goodfellas, The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Donnie Darko, and Once Upon a Time in the West just to name a few.

Another sad tale is that of Last.FM. Once upon a time, Last.FM was called Audioscrobbler, and it was just a music statistic aggregation service. There was no radio, there was no CBS - some guy started it as a college project. The Audioscrobbler charts were a thing of beauty. It contain exclusively interesting music, just the kind of thing that I expect from Excellent People. As with the Top 250, I didn’t like all of the music, but each artists was respectable in his own way. The list still has the shine of its old excellence, but it has since been sullied by substandard-clone-fempop like Lady GaGa, the kind of music listened to by Mundanes (and certainly not by Excellent People).

A Similar Phenomenon

The circles in which I run are filled with people who desire the world domination of the PC by GNU/Linux and other open source software, to the exclusion of everything else. I understand their rationale, and in many cases it is a well reasoned desire. However, most advocates of this viewpoint fail to understand to implications of a more ubiquitous GNU/Linux. As with the early Internet, one of the finest things about Linux is the population of people who use it. If more Mundanes used it, many things about it would cease to be as prevailingly “good”. In fact, in an effort to make GNU/Linux more ubiquitous, the userspace has already become watered down. For example, the Gnome Desktop Environment, though admittedly prettier and more usable than ever, has *long* since dropped much of the configurability and power that makes GNU/Linux so attractive to Excellent People.

So I’m a Snob - Deal With It

Long Term Utility for the Individual

Severe economic crises tend to make people much less materialistic and wasteful.  This effect is most visible in people who grew up during the depression (a demographic which sadly is in short supply these days).  They tend to be thrifty and concerned with storing up essentials for the future.  Of course, that effect is going to be mitigated this time around by pundits, politicians, and vendors who are imploring people to buy more.  I do acknowledge that consumerism will help minimize the damage of the economic crisis - however, I think a less materialistic outlook in the western nations will do much for the edification of individuals, and will perhaps make the economy a little more crash-proof.

“This isn’t life, it’s just stuff. And it’s become more important to you than living. Well, honey, that’s just nuts.” - Lester Burnham

Just a Little Bit of Healthy Skepticism

Much of the current crisis was caused by peoples’ excessive faith in the companies they do business with.  Participants in a regulated free-market often forget that all business is largely adversarial.  A company negotiating with you potentially wants to make money at your expense (and well they should - it’s their job!).  So, if banks believe that forcing you to foreclose on your house will net them a few extra dollars, they will try to force you to foreclose.  If a local electronics store thinks that they can get you to buy a cable with a 600% markup merely because you’re already in the store, they will sell it with a 600% markup.  Regardless of government regulation, healthy skepticism in the market will always be a positive thing for individuals.  The government simply can’t anticipate all the ways that people will try to screw you out of your money, but a properly trained individual can often recognize it.  I suspect (and hope) that many individuals who were stung by this crisis will learn to become a little suspicious of their economic adversaries.

A Man Whose Ivory Supplies are Running Low

The most fascinating aspect of the crisis for me is seeing the hypocrisy of many self proclaimed “Laissez-Faire” capitalists.  This particular aspect is fun for almost everybody - economically liberal folk get a convenient punching bag (as well as a handful of genuine converts), and economically conservative folk are able to identify who among their ranks are just opportunistic fakers.  Here are the two traditional kinds of economically conservative people.

A Real Laissez-Faire Capitalist suggests that a variety of forces can throw the economy out of balance.  He would insist that without the intervention or regulation of government, the “invisible hand” (as described by Adam Smith) will bring the the economy back into balance - a state where the market is most mutually beneficial.   Such a capitalist doesn’t expect the hand to move quickly, so economic crises must be stoically weathered - prudent capitalists will often prepare for such contingencies.

On the other hand, we have An Ordinary Greedy Individual.  He merely wants to make as much money as he can all the time - these people are often arrogant and short sighted.  In times of economic prosperity, they are almost indiscernible from a Real Laissez-Faire Capitalist, merely because they believe they can make the most money when Uncle Sam leaves them alone.  In an economic crisis however, they will beg and plead for government bailouts, insist on state regulation, and generally make asses out of themselves - which is why this aspect of the crisis is so absolutely fun.

On a related note, I have grown mistrustful of people who benefit too much from the ideologies they espouse.  Why should a cause championed by the beneficiaries of that cause hold any sway with the public?  Would anybody care if a whole bunch of death-row inmates formed a “Coalition of Americans Against the Death Penalty”?  But, if such a coalition was formed by the families of their murder victims, it would be far more convincing.

From what I understand, the intensity of the debate was exacerbated by accusations of plagiarism.  Supposedly, JMS had shopped his idea for B5 to Paramount long before DS9 was conceptualized.  The accusers go on to claim that Paramount blatantly plagiarized many concepts from the original B5 scripts.  There is no doubt that there are many uncanny similarities between the shows (space station, wormhole, “Dukat”, etc) , and I certainly sympathize with the small guy who gets his concept knocked off.  However, I find this particular accusation tedious for two reasons.  Firstly, parallel media releases are a fact of life.  There is an interesting article about that at Artful Writer. Secondly, I think the real meat of the show is not in the basic concepts, but in their execution.

There are several axes along which I have formed opinions about the shows: plot, scripting (these are different), plot consistency, acting, visuals, and soundtrack.

Plot

There is no doubt, JMS is a truly amazing story-weaver. The depth, breadth, and attention to detail of B5 is truly staggering. DS9 with its lame standalone episodes, lackluster first two seasons, and franchise-encumbered stories has a difficult time competing. That being said, this was still a tough call. DS9 had such incredible economic, political, religious, and sociological threads weaved throughout the show, mostly because of Bajor. Bajor was something that B5 lacked - truly dedicated attention to one very interesting race (vs the more “cosmopolitan” B5). Plus, the franchise that encumbered DS9 did serve to infuse an artificial sense of depth into the show.

Winner: B5

Writing

Where the plot governs the broader concepts of a show, writing governs the minutiae of the actual words that are used. In my opinion, this is incredibly important; it is what makes characters worth watching and worth caring about. It is difficult to fairly compare DS9 to B5 in this regard because DS9’s writing is far less consistent than B5’s (the lion share of which was created by jms himself). However, in this regard, B5’s consistency works against it. The B5 writing was consistently mediocre, except in those rare cases that made me slightly embarrassed to be watching the show. I blame this on the frequent and failed attempts at humor. Perhaps it simply aged badly, or perhaps it was manufactured to appeal to a nerdier brain, but I did not find B5 “humor” appealing. In the end, my metric for the writing is whether or not the show provided me with lines worth repeating. DS9 provided me with several, and B5 provided me with none.

Winner: DS9

Plot Consistency

This doesn’t even need debate. B5 has large a huge advantage at the outset; only one long running series and generally one writer. If it didn’t win, I would fault them. Not only is the consistency quite good, but JMS is the master of weaving in long-lost plot threads and tying up loose ends. However, DS9 isn’t half bad either. It certainly lacks the blatant disregard for “Star Trek Canon” that characterized Voyager and Enterprise.

Winner: B5

Acting

B5 has a lot of bad acting. The bad acting in B5 is a symptom of a larger problem; a small budget. DS9 was a franchise show with a guaranteed following and a large tier 1 studio behind it. Not only did DS9 have a fiscal advantage, but I strongly suspect that better actors were more willing to sign on to a Star Trek franchise show than to a heretofore unknown sci-fi project. Either way, the end result is that DS9 had a much stronger cast than B5. Leading the DS9 cast is Avery Brooks, who is simply fantastic - along with Patrick Stewart, one of the few Star Trek actors who can actually convey powerful emotions without seeming tacky or making me feel awkward. Yes there was bad acting in DS9, and yes there was good acting in B5, but the trends swung way towards DS9.

Another problem with B5 beyond a some poor performances was the high turnover rate of the cast. I read some of the casting changes and each actor/actress had a different story. However, I don’t think that it was just a coincidence. I strongly suspect that the static nature of JMS’s stories bothered some of the cast members who didn’t like their role or their amount of screen-time. This is just a theory, however. Maybe they just got unlucky.

Winner: DS9

Visuals

I don’t have much of an eye for these kinds of things, but I just prefer the DS9 visuals. Supposedly, B5 was one of the first shows to use pure digital effects, unlike DS9 which used models (like TNG). Honestly, I don’t think that the digital effects were there yet. Plus, there’s the previously mentioned budget disparity.

Winner: DS9 (on purely subjective grounds).

Soundtrack

Once more, the budget disparity was quite evident in the soundtrack performances. DS9’s soundtrack sounded like it was performed by an orchestra, whereas B5’s soundtrack sounded like it was synthesized with a Casio. That being said, the intrinsic quality of the music wasn’t amazing with either show. The music for both shows grew on me a little over time - however, I never felt compelled to purchase or even demo the soundtrack to either show. Thus, my verdict.

Winner: Neither (everybody’s a loser)

Legend:

• B5 = Babylon 5
• DS9 = Star Trek, Deep Space 9
• JMS = J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of B5
• Bajor = Watch DS9
• “Dukat” = Watch B5 and DS9

a) Economy is an interesting topic of discussion for a fictional universe like that described in the Harry Potter series. It should have been given more focus.
b) The small descriptions of the economy in Harry Potter did not seem reasonable given the constraints of that universe. The power and abilities of those living in the universe should have made a substantial impact in the logistics of their economy, yet there is no evidence of that in the series.

When b) was mentioned, one of the people involved in the discussion made comment (argumentatively) that Harry Potter was a work of fiction. The implication was that Rowling can do whatever she wants since it’s her universe. This is relatively true, but one can’t write any string of random words and call it quality fiction.

I’ve been thinking about this since, and I have come up with two questions:

• Is self-consistency important for a work of fiction?
• Is it important that a fictitious world obey our fundamental notions of commerce, math, physics, and human nature? Or at least those notions that we believe hold true even in a [metaphorical] vacuum?

Is Self-Consistency important?

Self-Consistency is definitely important.

Frankly, self-inconsistency makes the work less relateable. Fiction is often powerful because the reader/viewer believes that the work *could* be true (in another possible universe or another time). If the work is intrinsically and provably wrong, it detracts from that notion, and makes it uninteresting fiction. In fact, I would make the claim that if a work is self-inconsistent, it is no longer fiction; it is nonsense.

For instance, when the writers of a TV show say ‘A’ in one episode and ‘Not A’ in another episode, it is a Bad Thing - a sign of writer/editor laziness and apathy. It detracts from the quality of the show, and insults the viewers. This particular phenomenon has been a plague to the loyal viewers of many a geek-oriented television show. This is probably because (firstly) geeks care far more about self-consistency than the average viewer and (secondly) Television is far more susceptible than other media to inconsistency as it is generally created by large and diverse groups of writers, editors, and directors.

Should a work of fiction acknowledge our current notions of fundamental, universal properties?

On the one hand, it is arrogant to think that all of our fundamental ideas about human nature and the world around us are true.

However, like it or not, we all assume these laws to be true. If the author believes these to be untrue, I think there is some obligation on the part of the author to make note of it, either explicitly or passively through example.

For instance, if one were to base a book around the notion that 2+2=5, it would be best to mention it specifically at some point, or show an example that clearly illustrates that is going on.

Likewise, if an author created a fictional universe in which items with large supply and low demand command an exorbitant price, he should probably attempt to explain the phenomenon at some point. If the phenomenon isn’t explained, a reader would wonder why the packs of gum in the impulse aisles are inexplicably selling for $1,200, and would almost certainly find it vexing.

The book Flatland is a great example of this. In the book, the author describes a 2 Dimensional physical space and expounds on it. He does an excellent job explaining the nature of the universe, and explicitly describes how it differs from our own.

One particular meme that bothered me a great deal is “first post”.  Usually found on popular blogs with an excess of early commenting (e.g. Slashdot), a person would declare “first post!” if he believed his comment to be the first against a particular article. In my experience, only the foulest dregs and attention-starved undesirables would stoop to a “first post”. There were several instances of first posting that annoyed me more than the others.

1. Incorrectly asserting first post. This happened quite often, especially on sites that implement caching and thereby delay the appearance of comments (again, Slashdot is the quintessential example).
2. First post comments that contained nothing else. These annoyed everybody, and in moderated blogs, were usually moderated down into oblivion.
3. First post comments that were masquerading as real comments using some inane groupthink platitudes, which very well might have been templatized:
   

   This is good. I like [Insert Article Title]. Down with Microsoft. By the way, first post!

So here I am, giving as good as I got. In a world with well over 10 million blogs, what overwhelming temerity is required to declare first post? I am such a hypocrite.