Loved that column, Wil. One of the reasons I started reading AV club regularly back then. This is a great example of it. I always gravitated towards the less popular arcade games so I had a shot in hell (I think I did something there) to get a high score. I keep hoping Satan's Hollow will show up at my local arcade, Barcade. That and Bump'n'Jump.

That is awesome. When you get the shop up, I'm getting one for my nephew.

It sounds cheesy, but I think the key for these sites is to be yourself. Only thing the other sites are definitely not doing. With the low cost of switching/long tail/blah blah blah eventually you will find an audience that is attuned to the way you think. Look at Penny Arcade, they just started out talking about games like a ton of other sites, but they maxed out being themselves. That also sounds cheesy.

Nice!

Yes sir, Mr Wheaton, sir! http://spineart.blogspot.com/2009/11/patterns-ii.html I'll be spreading this (Wil's) post around, inspiration!

That is terrifying. My favorite thing about living in NYC is not driving. Had a similar experience on the 101 years ago. Glad to hear you're ok. On a related note, everyone who drives (particularly on the freeways) should read this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/14/720033/-Youve-Seen-It-Before;-READ-IT-AGAIN-DAMMIT!!-(Redux)

I just reread Watchmen (again) and noticed something interesting (to me). When I first read it, at 14 in 88, I was all about Rorschach. The nihilism and unwavering certainty appealed to me, I suppose. When I reread it in college I noticed I was much more in sync with where Ozymandius was coming from. His striving to do some good no matter what the cost (while profiting from it) again spoke to something in me, and how I saw the world at the time. This last time, at 35, it was Nite Owl (Dreiberg, not Mason)who caught my attention. I hadn't paid him too much attention in my previous readings apart from the way hit fit into the plot. Now it seemed like he was the most realistic character. Just someone trying to do the right thing and get by. Anyone else notice this from multiple readings? Truly a great piece of art. The themes can be teased apart and poured over, but it also holds up as several great character studies. Thanks so much for the review Wil. I am desperately trying to keep my expectations lowered, and you are making it very difficult.

My parents (60's) text, my wifes mother (50's) texts. My grandparents (Grandma turns 90 this year!) uses their ipod. Although they get my father to download the music. I realize the plural of anecdote isn't data, but as I walk down the street and see people who are 50+ routinely using cellphones, I am amazed how far we've come in such a short time. However, I agree. It is more an technological evolution than a revolution. But it is an evolution happening so fast that it is instigating a cultural revolution. And in any revolution, there is a generational gap. Horse/foot culture evolved into car culture, but it may have felt like the world was being turned upside down for some. The RIAA is just trying to protect their share of the buggy-whip market.

Great piece, wil. I think it will always happen slower than we want, but, over time, the flow of information will move to be less restricted in general. It wants to be free! That's where the media has been coming from the past few decades. Ratcheting up the noise so the signal can be drowned out. One of the benefits of today's narrowcasting environment, it you are allowed to filter the noise yourself. The flip side, is of course only letting in the signal that reinforces ones own beliefs. And we can always count on the revolution to surprise. Like when they make P2P cell phones: http://www.terranet.se/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=17&Itemid=62 An exciting time we live in.

As per the conversation, however, I would say that while I too know quite a few people who are single-issue libertarians, the public face of the Libertarian Party does no favors to building the ranks. It always seems like they end up putting up someone who advocates for revoking the seatbelt law or something. While I am for a less intrusive government, there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to social costs of people's actions. If someone becomes paralyzed or worse from a car accident because they don't wear a seatbelt, then they drain resources from the community (both public services and their work/family/etc.) This is true even if you don't wear one in New Jersey. When a government determines the social cost of an action is greater than the restriction of freedom caused by outlawing it, it becomes illegal. Or at least that is what would happen if laws were constructed in a logical fashion. A lot of this interest in libertarianism comes from the laws being drafted and enforced in a very inconsistent manner. e.g. It seems unlikely the social cost of marijuana legalization would be greater than alcohol or nicotine. People who look into these things (or, say, internet gambling) realize the inconsistency, and look for a more reasonable position. Since extreme libertarianism means everything is legal, it is the default response for advocating the decriminalization of any pet topic. While it may be a bit lazy, it is an extremely consistent philosophy and so an excellent shorthand. The differences between the political world and observable reality are why people lose faith in their government and NBA officiating.

As per the conversation, however, I would say that while I too know quite a few people who are single-issue libertarians, the public face of the Libertarian Party does no favors to building the ranks. It always seems like they end up putting up someone who advocates for revoking the seatbelt law or something. While I am for a less intrusive government, there seems to be a lack of understanding when it comes to social costs of people's actions. If someone becomes paralyzed or worse from a car accident because they don't wear a seatbelt, then they drain resources from the community (both public services and their work/family/etc.) This is true even if you don't wear one in New Jersey. When a government determines the social cost of an action is greater than the restriction of freedom caused by outlawing it, it becomes illegal. Or at least that is what would happen if laws were constructed in a logical fashion. A lot of this interest in libertarianism comes from the laws being drafted and enforced in a very inconsistent manner. e.g. It seems unlikely the social cost of marijuana legalization would be greater than alcohol or nicotine. People who look into these things (or, say, internet gambling) realize the inconsistency, and look for a more reasonable position. Since extreme libertarianism means everything is legal, it is the default response for advocating the decriminalization of any pet topic. While it may be a bit lazy, it is an extremely consistent philosophy and so an excellent shorthand. The differences between the political world and observable reality are why people lose faith in their government and NBA officiating.

or that? (trying to close the tag)

Did that work?

Remember if you keep unloading 1/2 your stuff, you'll never run out. The Tortoise always beats Achilles, who runs twice as fast. At least you have all your old stuff. I just found out my mom took "2 huge boxes of books" to goodwill. There goes my chronicling of Piers Anthony's slide into mediocrity.

I apologize in advance. I made an offhand comment at Football Outsiders http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/12/15/ramblings/too-deep-zone/4687/ (comment #7, then read comment #29) Looks like someone might be getting in touch with you. Just remember me at Oscar time. And thanks for the comic rec, I'll be checking that out. Haven't read a good comic in a loooooooooong itme.