Network neutrality may be a bit of a vague concept. Some may know how they feel the Internet should be treated, but do not know if it is pro- or anti-neutrality.

Network neutrality is, basically, the principle that the Internet should be kept open. No websites or users should be discriminated against by Internet service providers. Owners of websites and/or companies should not pay extra money for a “fast lane” to Internet users, or just to have a site that actually exists.

Those against network neutrality–Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T, for example–argue that their bandwidth is being taken up as connection speeds experience a widespread increase. They say that it costs a large sum of money to be able to upgrade their bandwidth and servers to accommodate such higher speeds.

Their arguments hold absolutely no water whatsoever.

It is corporate greed, nothing more. If these companies were in danger of actually losing money, they would not survive. They would lose their business–they would go under. There is no logical reason to disband network neutrality for an unnecessairly larger profit.

What is ironic is that Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon all claim they care about their customers–that their consumers come first, before business. It is all a lie, really. If such companies were truly caring of their consumers, they would put network neutrality first. It protects the rights of all Internet users. From the freedom of speech to the freedom of the press, the Internet is the embodiment of the First Amendment. Taking this away takes away our Constitutional rights, which Internet service providers do not seem to care about.

Network neutrality is supported by many firms and groups we are familiar with: Amazong, the American Library Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Chemistry.com, CollegeHumor, eBay, Earthlink, Facebook, Free Press, Google, Match.com, Netflix, PayPal, Public Knowledge, Skype, Sony, TiVo, Twitter, YouTube, and even the Obama administration itself.

There is a question that I see comes up often–are video games art? Roger Ebert said no, sparking up frustration and anger from those who believe otherwise.  I have given this subject–this question–numerous, deep thoughts, and I believe I have come to a belief.

I believe that video games have the potential to be artistic in various aspects. Storytelling may be one, with Shadow of the Colossus and ICO, as well as the Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy series, but the latter two games, I feel, have fairly basic storytelling.

One of the main problems about storytelling is that a bulk of plot-driven games are fairly simple. Some sort of evil threatens some population, a few chosen individuals (or a single individual him- or herself) take on said evil, and the good will normally triumph–the evil triumphs at a simple “game over” screen or something similar, but the player is encouraged to finish the story.

I think that gamers are so passionate about fairly basic plots being deep is that, rather than taking a backseat and watching the action from the third person, video games ask you to take control of a character (or multiple ones), creating a deeper relationship between the player and the plot. There is a feeling of cause and effect the player experiences.

There are flaws, though. A character may be too scripted. While there is a feeling of cause and effect, the fact of the matter is that this happens in every copy of the game. That feeling of being the cause of any event is taken away as soon as any discussion starts, and the conversation becomes nothing more than a simplified version of a literary masterpiece or great film.

A notable example of unique storytelling is Valve’s Portal. The game’s story is told with no cutscenes whatsoever. Instead, the only other character in the game, an AI named GLaDOS, talks directly to you, the player, with witty remarks, humor (which can be dark at times), and threats.

But storytelling is not the only approach games can take. LittleBigPlanet, for example, is heavily community-based. Anyone can create a level and tell their own, basic story with their very own creation. LittleBigPlanet lets the user’s creative juices flow; he or she can make whatever is desired, provided it is within the game’s limits. This can lead to many possibilities, from tributes to original creations. I believe that if a game can bring out the most vivid imaginations to others (and even to oneself), then it is a work of art itself.

Video games suffer from a stereotype that is slowly becoming stronger–they are simple playthings that should not be given much thought, or that they are even machines of simulated violence, only for the amusement for the wicked. What is unfortunate is that the most commercialized games are typically more violent than others. Those who are not interested in video games will then only be exposed to virtual violence, leading many to believe that there is nothing much beyond a game other than violence.

What may be even more unfortunate is that violence is the easy way out for developers. World War II games, in particular, had a period of extreme prominence. As a result, first-person shooters (see also: Halo, Call of Duty, etc.) end up being larger in quantity than other, more original games.

I have seen that video games can be art, but with large public figures and commercialization, such a feat is immensely difficult and takes an incredible team to create something artistic. The video game industry can seem lucrative, but there is more to it–the quality of games and the experience of the target audience. A truly unique, fulfilling experience is what I believe developers should strive for.

Music is art–I’m sure many would agree (though some may waver depending on the genre in question). Like films, video games need some sort of soundtrack to set the mood, to evoke emotions. Ambience, orchestra, various acoustic instruments hailing from various cultures, and even metal–scores are used in situations to insure the best possible musical experience. If such meticulous work is put into a soundtrack, should it not be recognized?

Video games can be visually stunning. A high video resolution combined with a powerful console and polygon count can yield many possibilities. One could aim for a photorealistic approach, or a more animated, cartoon-based look. What I find more impressive, though, are two-dimensional graphics–sprites and related. These have to be drawn, pixel by pixel. Sprites can be used for two-dimensional art styles we are all so familiar with, which I think takes a lot more effort and creativity than  three-dimensional graphics (but don’t get me wrong–I still highly respect 3D modelers, but 2D just appeals to me far more). Braid, I believe, achieved one of the most visually stunning two-dimensional graphics I have seen. Its style is focused on watercolor and bright, vivid environments (plus, the music is fitting–soft, smooth pieces to accompany you on a journey).

It is ironic and unfortunate that video games, despite combining several mediums considered to be art, are regarded as playthings and nothing more. Especially since they can easily be interactive films.

It’s interesting how much we can judge and generalize from one experience from one venue.

It’s no news that the high school I attend has gained a sub-par (if not worse) reputation. I never get to see such reactions, though — my main source of information has been from the two years of journalism I’ve taken and simple word-of-mouth, although that isn’t exactly credible. Even then, though, the rumors and the reputation still exist.

It’s human nature to make generalizations based on an experience. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s acceptable, though. As a student of Rancho, I feel that I need to have a say in this.

High schools are similar. I have friends from other schools, and it’s more than obvious how similar cliques can be. This group has people with X interest here, that group has people with Y interest here, it’s all alike. You have the best-performing students, and you have the borderline failing ones. You have everyone inbetween.

When I compare my classes to each other, I can see a trend. The advanced classes — like Pre-Calculus — don’t really have the slacking students, the “pot smokers.” A student takes an advanced class because they’re serious about their education.

Sometimes, an advanced class may be too much. In my more “standard” classes, you can see the fine line that separates the students who care about education from those who don’t.

It’s frustrating how someone can judge so much from so little — a perfectly fine high school being heavily criticized by those who have seemingly closed minds.

And yet, at the same time, it’s human nature, isn’t it — to make sense of an experience and characterize it, no matter how much or how little we were exposed to said experience.

I saw both Evan Lysacek’s and Evgeni Plushenko’s performances at the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, and when Lysacek stayed in first after Plushenko’s program, I was thrilled and felt he deserved every bit of the medal.

Plushenko, on the contrary, thinks otherwise.

And his basis is just a single jump — a quad. Is that what decides who wins and who does not?

It’s silly. Lysacek’s performance was far more seamless, as far as I could tell. According to the judges, Plushenko’s jumps had shaky landings, compared to Lysacek.

So why all is he whining? He still got silver — the second best in the world by just about a point. I don’t know, but that sounds pretty good: being ranked second-best by such a small margin should be something anyone can be more than proud of. For example, the bronze medalist, Daisuke Takahashi, said he’s more than happy with his medal.

He even attempted to land a quad and failed, but he’s not saying anything about that, is he?

Plushenko’s lack of gratefulness is appalling. It’s more than easy to make one mistake and lose any chances at a medal — take Lindsey Vonn, for example, who had lost her chances at a medal more than once (but still nailing gold earlier this week).

The amount of crying people are doing over the full-body scanners at certain airports is absolutely ridiculous.

To make the complaining even more ridiculous, the scan is conducted by a pair of officers — one operates the machine, another reviews the scanned image (which, I should mention, cannot be stored, recorded, etc. in any way).  So why all the complaining?

The CNN report brings up the scanner’s speed — a highly efficient 15-30 seconds. Even more reason to favor this screening method.

Last summer, I went on a trip to Rhode Island with my father and sister. The shirt I wore was a little too big, which an officer caught as suspcious and performed a quick (not full) pat-d0wn. I can say that being pat down made me feel violated. I’d rather go through a quick scan — it’s for the safety of myself and others. Honestly, the idea of someone viewing my scan doesn’t disturb me. Why should I care? I’ll never see the officer in person (or knowingly, anyway), and he or she can’t recognize me. I can’t see anything wrong with this full-body scanner.

“What they’re showing you now is a dumbed-down version of what this technology is capable of doing,” [Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center] said. “Having blurry images shouldn’t blur the issue.”

What issue? The nonexistent issue of privacy? Or perhaps it’s the issue of being incredibly touchy — to a massive fault — about a significant advance in airport security.

“Screeners at LAX [Los Angeles International Airport],” [American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chris Calabrese speculated, “could make a fortune off naked virtual images of celebrities.”

In some ways, I guess making a fortune could be feasible — but as reported earlier in the article, the images “resemble a fuzzy negative,” so I can’t really see how much of a fortune someone could make. And, as mentioned earlier, the images cannot be saved or stored in any way. (a.k.a. haha you lose)
In the report, Bruce Schneider brought up an interest point. These full-body scanners won’t stop terrorists — they’re smart and won’t just run through standard procedures, but instead will develop crafty tactics. So are the scanners just for moot, then?

No. Isolated incidents still count, and can still cause very notable damage.

Recently, a project was assigned in a class of mine.

“Our mission is create an archive of [tragedies and the human spirit] – times when we have been tested and the stories of how we have responded.  We are working in a collation of over 150 students, so find a way to contribute and don’t let the group down.“

To see my own contribution, go here. (The project stands at approximately 910 words, but no more than 915.)

No, the V key’s not stuck. VVVVVV is an independent game, incorporating puzzle and platforming mechanics together. But I’m not focusing on that (nor the fantastic soundtrack). Rather, I’m focusing on its story. VVVVVV’s story isn’t the greatest or most engaging — a ship of a crew of six gets thrown into a dimension. The whole crew is isolated from one another, and as the captain, it’s your job to rescue them. Not engaging, right?

Technically, no. But technically, yes.

That dimension’s eventual collapse is brought up. As you progress, it becomes more apparent that the dimension’s collapse is closer than what everyone had thought before. When the game is “beaten,” one of the last pieces of dialogue is from the captain, saying that they’ll find a way to save the dimension.

There are 20 collectibles, scattered throughout all levels. Once acquiring all 20, the crew finds themselves teleported to a laboratory full of research that could save the dimension. These pieces of research are actually newly unlocked modes and goals in the game.

So, in essence, VVVVVV’s story is a metaphor. We all know that feeling when we read a great book — we don’t want it to end.

But it has to. Isn’t that why we’re reading it? We dive into a new world and find a conflict. We want to see that conflict come to a denouement, to see it end. Yet, ironically, we don’t want to finish reading that book. We want it to continue, but it can’t.

VVVVVV achieves this well. The dimensions eventual collapse represents the end of the game  — the fact that once it’s done, it’s done. No more.

And then a new discovery is made, and the dimension is saved… for now. The game will eventually have to end, either by the player’s own accord or by achieving all that’s offered. But, in the end, it’s just a temporary extension, maybe like a sequel to a novel. It’s another part to the story, but that will have to end as well.

I still don’t understand why Obama’s receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

What, exactly, did he do that merits one? Suggest peace and love during his campaign? Continue a war because it hasn’t ended?

All Obama has done is what I’d call “presidential duties.” He’s just doing his job.

The reasoning behind this move is one I can’t make sense of.

Protests always seem to go wrong. It’s bad that there are budget cuts, but they had to happen. With the economy still in the toilet, budgets aren’t going to go in a favorable direction. I can understand the need to protest—a 32 percent increase in tuition isn’t a pleasant surprise. Maybe there’s a way to decrease that.

Maybe not.

What the student protesters need to understand is that there’s a line between legal and illegal (or smart and not smart). Refusing to leave a building (sounds like a stubborn child) so daily educational activities can continue isn’t the best idea. Resisting the police force is far, far from smart. Isn’t it common sense that resisting arrest (or just a simple question—please leave) is moronic?

Consider this excerpt:

She said the protest was both good and bad, because while it raised more awareness about the budget cuts, none of the group’s demands were met, including that the university restore funding to the ethnic studies program, make the campus administration’s processes more transparent, and abandon plans for a new athletic center.

 Consider this excerpt:

[Taylor Mehit] said the protest was both good and bad, because while it raised more awareness about the budget cuts, none of the group’s demands were met, including that the university restore funding to the ethnic studies program, make the campus administration’s processes more transparent, and abandon plans for a new athletic center.

“They didn’t really offer to negotiate with us, they just waited for our numbers to dwindle,” Mehit said. “That says something about the administration when, rather than negotiate with things that are fairly simple, they would rather send in SWAT teams.”

Okay. None of the group’s demands were met… Of course. Why would they be met? The protesters acted like children trying to get that expensive toy at the top of the shelf. “If I hold my breath, I can get what I want!” is the logic I see behind the protest.

“I feel like by occupying the business building, we’re saying it’s not business as usual, and we must take a stand against these cuts,” [Emily Caruso] said.

…Really? You can’t fight the economy, for one thing. That’s causing the budget cuts, is it not? And that “business as usual” symbol? It’s obscure. That argument holds no water whatsoever.

Common sense is long gone.

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein

It’s been reported, again and again, that Roman Polanski has been arrested for statutory rape. Okay, great. A criminal’s facing justice. …Right?

Apparerently not. A good deal of fairly important people argue that the man should be freed. I don’t understand. What’s the logic behind their belief? “Oh, he’s a rich man. He’s a director. He’s important! He shouldn’t have to face justice.”

Right. Being a celebrity means being above the law. He could murder a man and get away from it. He’s made million of dollars, so who’s stopping him?

It’s amazing how high logic can fly over people’s heads—enough for a mountain to fit through. At the same time, it’s depressing. Big, influential figures making foolish declarations. It can either lead to a flurry of mocking or widespread agreement.

Or other figures jumping on the agreement bandwagon.

A crime is a crime. It doesn’t matter that Polanski was caught because he was on his way to a film festival and was out in the open. He shouldn’t have fled from his crime. It only makes things more severe. Through that logic, it would make sense for a greater punishment.

What a way to go.