Author: Chris Krause

5 years with Dwarf Fortress and my first fortress is doing OK. The “Abbey of Death” is built into a muddy hill.

Level 0 – The surface, with fortifications for fighting off Goblin attacks. I thought the ballista would be able to shoot down a Z-level, but I have been informed that it cannot. Built about 4 years after settlement.

Level 1 – The main fortress and surrounding countryside, industries on the right. Channels and bridges made this year.

Level 2– The Dwarf social level. The first place where I struck stone, hence the stone industries and first quarry on the right. On the top left of this zone you can see my emergency water system, which runs down 5 levels (to below where water can freeze) and is controlled by a set of three fail-safe floodgates.

Assorted Screenshots:

Ground Hog Slaughter – Ground hogs kept coming out of the ground and disrupting my cowardly wood cutters. I dispatched a squad of soldiers to slaughter them, who surrounded the hole with dogs and then shot the groundhogs from the surface. There was so much blood it pooled upward.

Blooper! – Female dwarf miner has her baby while mining, and loses the baby in the rocks.

Diagram – Brainstorming diagram for the emergency water system.

Status – Overview of the fortress.

Based upon the Richard M. Gummere translation, a reading.

Epistles 1-5:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 6-10:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 11-15:
YouTube | Download mp4

Epistles 16-20:
YouTube | Download mp4

A major topic which has been on my mind in recent weeks is the essential nature of a librarian: are those who choose this discipline philosophers or technicians?  It must be said at risk of pedantry that being a technician is fundamentally different than practicing philosophy: the former is informed by a professional obligation to work a craft, the latter is a lover of knowledge who works a craft as an end in itself. In the Platonic sense: the philosopher is concerned with flourishing of the soul, while the technician is concerned with contracts and technologies. The nature of our vocation is such that there is no clear or simple answer to this question: we straddle both the humanities and science, serving as guardians, as gateways between knowledge and access. My cognitive dissonance on this topic goes back to our discussion of whether or not we should provide a man with the knowledge necessary to commit domestic terrorism or whether we should intervene.

The mainstream professional opinion (accentuated by Rubin and also the majority of other students in the discussion) is that we should be neutral dispensers of knowledge: we should, as a good technician asked to fulfill his contractual obligations, effectively and efficiently answer queries without judging the knowledge or those asking for our reference assistance.  We as librarians are not responsible for the actions of others who take the knowledge we have made available to them, even if it results in the slaughter of others.

Yet something about this doctrine is deeply disturbing to me. It is one thing to look the other way when a strange man in a trench coat asks you to help him access BDSM zines, we might write that off as eccentric and expediently provide guidance. We are not to judge morally those who inquire for their own personal entertainment or intellectual stimulation, but we are to judge and act against those who intend to injure others, not only as librarians, but as human beings; it is an entirely different sort of engagement when we assist a criminal in his research to slaughter innocents.

The thought experiment does not involve an engineer visiting a library to look up a special formula to clear abandoned buildings; it clearly implies that the would-be researcher is looking to commit arson or terrorism. This becomes not a matter of ethics for a librarian but a matter of ethics for a human being. Before you help our would-be destroyer kill his neighbors you must first address the question of whether or not this sort of collaboration is befitting a citizen of the community. Doctors take an oath not to harm, but those who aided the Nazis in whipping up Zyklon B were still considered criminals, even though they may not have dropped the tablets themselves. By aiding a would-be terrorist in committing acts of terrorism, you are an accomplice in those crimes and violate your sacred trust as a guardian and conduit of knowledge. I can think of no way to reason out of that conclusion.

It is our duty as American citizens to pry into others privacy when they relate to us that they are planning to slaughter others. The proper reaction for a virtuous individual would not be to aid the criminal, but to immediately report him or her to law enforcement, and then ensure that an escape is not possible, performing a citizen’s arrest if need be. Terrorism leaves the domain of “personal beliefs” and enters into the realm of action. It is unacceptable for a librarian to plead neutrality on this topic.

Librarians should instead serve as wise guides to knowledge, steering the ignorant, confused and curious toward materials which would enrich their mind and character. Take the example of a distraught individual who is looking for books on how to kill oneself. I might comply with that request, but I also might suggest other volumes which might be more befitting of wholesome, skillful knowledge. I suppose that complies with a general ethical maxim of mine, that one with power and knowledge should be a steward and caretaker of those without either. In this sense it is my responsibility to act against the terrorist, so that others may be preserved. If that course of action is incompatible with the ALA doctrine of librarianship, then chances are I won’t be working as one.

It was refreshing that after some heated debate in which I defended my views against the status quo doctrine that you provided a reasoned opinion on this matter which, while not as brazen as my own, seemed to support the notion that amorality in librarianship is dangerous and dubious. This topic became immediate recently with the discussion of policy’s influence on our discipline, wherein I argued that if net or information neutrality was infringed by policy makers that it would be our personal obligation as librarians to boldly resist and act against it. That is perhaps a topic for another time, as I am already over the expected length of this reflection.

To conclude, I feel compelled to behave as a philosopher and not a technician. Whether this will result in professional friction is irrelevant to me: to act otherwise would be to betray those around me and to disservice myself. It is not enough simply to perform a craft, to have knowledge. Our station demands that we wield our tools with wisdom and with justice, else we act as a destructive rather than creative force in the world.

I think a major information policy change we will have to adapt to as professionals is “net neutrality.” While the internet may remain neutral, in the sense that corporations may still be restricted from controlling what a user can access, the discussion over it has created a precedent in which it might be reasonable to do so in the same way “intelligent design” is considered to be a rational surrogate to sound science simply because it has had such a degree of media attention. Accordingly, firms such as Google have collaborated with the People’s Republic of China to restrict Chinese internet users from seeing information censored by Big Brother. In the future we may be faced with having to answer the fundamental question: should knowledge be free, or should it be restricted? Furthermore, if it should be free, and if the powers that be deem otherwise, what is our duty as professionals in response to that?

Oddly, information was once restricted and restricted – monasteries and the early colleges once were the exclusive repositories of knowledge, and to access the volumes within was a costly and privileged affair. Even up until the 20th century knowledge was a safely guarded treasure, restricted to elites, and rarely made available to the masses. Whether this was by virtue of lack of technology and resources, or by inclination of the elites maintaining those collections is irrelevant, as with the formation of public schools and libraries, information was then recognized by the public as open. Now, bizarrely, we are in some ways degenerating to a bygone era in which the princes and kings of the land controlled access to information, and our strongest firms are all too eager to collaborate with repressive regimes. Capitalism knows no good beyond profit, and accordingly, blinding a few billion people seems perfectly acceptable if a buck is made. While it may not be probable it may be possible that in the future information and it’s most common mode of proliferation (the internet), may not be neutral. If legislation is passed which corporatizes the internet, and profit becomes the lowest common denominator in the determination of access, those with the most wealth (as in the past) will have the greatest access, and those with the least, will be barred.

If this were to occur we would be faced with the question or whether we would accept this new law or reject it. Would we become activists and revolutionaries or maintain the status quo, changing how we shade our professional expression overnight? While I do believe that it is in the interest of a good teacher and guardian to stagger access to information in the Platonic sense – there should be no wall which bars an individual from accessing information. To this end I believe librarians should throw caution to the wind and reject such an abhorrent policy, for it only would contribute to a closed, fearful, superstitious and ignorant society. These are the very failings we as professionals are tasked with dispelling: we are not merely dispensers mindlessly referencing and maintaining collections, but we are also teachers. And with teaching, come a judgment of the good, and a judgment of how a healthy state should function. Should we not only condone but take part in a system which propagates ignorance and fear by restricting access to the truth?

Ultimately that is what an age without information neutrality would bring: a void of understanding in which the truth cannot be derived because it is obfuscated by policy walls. Republican government and its populist, democratic conventions rely upon a healthy, informed and wise citizenry to appoint virtuous representatives and so maintain the harmonious functioning of the state. Without the ability to think and to find information freely, the citizenry is disarmed in this regard, and is powerless to know what is the case and what is not the case. We librarians, along with our academic colleagues, might be the only defense to restore sanity if a policy such as this were to be enacted.

Disorganized rant spam, away!

You really like saying Oscar Mike – at.any.possible occasion. I can just imagine a suit puffing on a cigar with his legs kicked up: “Well boys, you see, Americans wanna kill, they love em some Generation Kill, so let’s just make it into a video game, see? Big bucks.”

Invasion of the US by Russia:

• Where are all the planes based? How did they cross European and Japanese airspace, and the span of two entire oceans without being detected? Whatever nonsense reason the game gives for not being detected doesn’t matter, they would still be visually identified. And by the way, no Russian aircraft has that range, nor could the Russian military ever remotely be able to execute such an operation. Where are the planes going to rebase and be resupplied? It’s as realistic as aliens invading the US.
• OH NOES A BTR??! Since when is a Cold War relic like a BTR considered a piece of heavy armor that is immune to grenades? Why doesn’t anyone in the platoon have an AT4 or Javelin (the former of which is a standard feature in the US fire team)? Why would you fill the precious space in your sticks with 50+ year outdated vehicles? Since when do BTRs have firing systems like Strykers, and why are they firing ammunition which is capable of blowing a 2 meter hole in the side of a house? Since when are BTR tires bullet proof, and why wouldn’t the sergeant think to disable the vehicle with grenades rather than scream bloody murder like an AT-AT was coming down on them?
• On the topic of AT4s – where is the first time we see one? In a Russian oil platform converted to a SAM site. Why do the Russians have AT4s and why are they massing hand held AT weapons on an oil platform?
• At first I thought the tracers going up in the sky were from US AAA platforms, but later on you have to take out Russian AAA that is firing into the sky. This implies that all of the AAA is Russian. Why would the Russians try to shoot down their own invasion? Also, traditional AAA is pretty useless in the modern era, and its especially useless when fired up in random swathes like WW2 flak.
• I’m not sure why you decided to give the Russian paratroopers a make-believe uniform – but i’m not bitching about novelty, only the fact that they look IDENTICAL to the US guys running around. How did this not come up in play testing?
• Using a Stryker as a heavy piece of armor? See BTR. Why not the Bradleys that were featured in the convoy which rescued the platoon from Taco Bell in the previous mission?
• Nit pick: no nuclear attack? Do the Russians really think they can invade, occupy and hold the US cities with conventional forces? It’s absurd. Protip: you will need more than BTRs and paratroopers to take out US armored divisions.

Rio:

• I can’t think of worst level design in my all my years of gaming.
• The Rio levels take the most infuriating aspects of the Battle of Bastogne from yesteryear Call of Duty games and combine them with the visual overload of a Japanese anime. I love being corralled to go one exact way or be immediately killed. In previous games if you strayed a foot the wrong way, you were blasted with a 88mm HE shell which you somehow miraculously survived like a stun prod, in this game, you are blasted by militia from rooftops all around.
• The shotgun you start with is so absurdly unrealistic that it made me chuckle. 10 foot maximum range, and only really effective at 1-5 feet. If you run out of ammo for your rifle as I did, prepare to die dozens of times and have to listen to the same lines of dialog over and over again. The shotgun will not get you through.
• Am I supposed to hate “soap”?
• I can never tell what’s going on because my AI team mates don’t use any coherent strategy or bounding over watch, instead running around at random intervals.
• I have a feeling the cigar puffing exec just wanted to cash out on Resident Evil 5 fare.

Slaughter at the airport:

• Seriously?
• Who thought it was a good idea to play as a terrorist mowing down dozens of innocent civilians? Are you trying to give Lieberman and his mindless cronies exactly what they claim games to be?
• I would love to meet the animators who painstakingly detailed the death throws and possum-playing of the innocents the player is commanded to mow down.
• If you ever wanted to play as a gunman in the Beslan massacre, your prayers are answered!
• When I tried to do the right thing, and kill the bastard leading the death squad, I was given a game over screen. Do you seriously intend to FORCE me to do this? I know, I know, there is an option to skip this stage, but what were they thinking?
• Why would the operative’s ID be revealed when he was killed? IF that happened in real life, and those sort of false-flag operations are very common, the CIA/DoD would just deny the existence/affiliation of the operative. In any event, it’s absurd to think it would lead to World War III.

Snow level:

• Only redeeming experience from this decadent game, mainly because I felt like I was Solid Snake again. The ice climbing thing was pretty cool. That’s about it.

Must play Combat Mission: Shock Force to cleanse myself now.

While waiting for my latest YouTube contribution, a recording of Seneca’s Epistles, to finish encoding, I ventured upon Hulu to entertain myself. Destination Truth was on the front page, the episode entitled Lost City/Thunderbird. Great I thought, a show about truth, something I am very interested in, perhaps a gonzo style documentary about a remote city or a mythological creature. Much to my dismay, the show was the most terrifying variety of nonsense and skulduggery (to mime the venerable James Randi) I have seen in memory. The recipe is simple.

Take a bunch of spoiled, soft, white liberals and drop them into a foreign land, make sure they have no training in history, anthropology, geology or archaeology, wait for them to encounter the natural sounds and sights of nature, and then record their process of discovery as they panic and label all as supernatural by virtue of their endemic ignorance. Oh, and give them tons of expensive sound and video equipment so they can pretend to be experts on the “paranormal” (whatever that means) as they stare doe-eyed at photoshopped images of supposed ghost finding software and the ominous fruits of their expedition. Some scary/hilarious instances of incredulity:

A thermal camera reveals a warm section of underbrush and this indicates the presence of an ancient burial site where the spirits of the dead call for aid. Closer inspection reveals a tunnel into the earth, and putting the camera down into it, nothing is detected. Later analysis of the audio picks up a clicking noise. One of the crew members states that no sound should be coming from the tunnel so this is proof of the supernatural. So no animals can live in the cavern, the structure is perfectly solid and rocks cant roll around, and it was impossible for the camera to knock against the wall of the tunnel you lowered it into? If you take a brochure about refinancing your house, and if you look hard enough, and randomly amplify and rearrange the letters, you will find a doomsday prophecy. Did anyone stop to consider that the tunnel might be a naturally formed vent for hot gases to escape, hence the thermal signature?

The city slickers hear what is clearly a wild animal howling in the night, a fact that would be obvious to anyone who has ever been in the wilderness before, and conclude that it is a ghost crying to be noticed. If a singing loon is the cries of the long dead calling for remembrance, then the forests of upstate new york are filled with such spirits.

Barely audible sounds, supposedly amplified on said software detects a human voice saying “touch him” in response to the expedition leader’s request for contact with what he presumes are supernatural beings. It dawns upon no one that ancient Incan spirits might not know English.It dawns upon no one that the hardware they were using to detect the audio would pick up all the sounds of the wilderness and of the other members of their expedition nearby, forming apparently coherent sounds. And what does “touch him” even mean? Nothing, because nothing said it.

Occam is turning in his grave in contemplation of such drivel. That anyone could find this show compelling is a devastating thought to me.

When the hall was complete Cato gathered the children in the early morning on the grounds before the statue of the goddess. Fight, and who wins will have a place of honor in this school. At first the boys remained silent, and then one struck out across another until the whole company was in battle. Cato saw that most boys threw fists and bludgeoned the others. A few though looked to the goddess and grappled their foes. They used their mass against them. In this fashion smaller boys were able to submit stronger ones. It was this species which remained standing. Cato grinned and said these will be my class leaders. Let it be so said that he who is prudent will steer away from the rocky shoals of life and find serene waters. To embrace the world in its collision against us, and to move with that force, rather than pull from it, is wise. Let your bruises remind you of the error of your ways.

Half of the boys did not return the next day. Those who did not return lack the fortitude to serve or lead others. They will be schooled in the crafts, and instead take pride in pleasures rather than virtue. As they lack the liberality of mind to minister the needs of the people, we shall do so for them. Those who refuse this will not be welcome among us, as a rotting leaf is not welcome to a thriving tree. That rot attracts mites.

In this way Cato schooled the boys of the village on the character of a wise man. Cato warned that there would be an exam at the hall one day. Those who scored well would go on to become the heads of the village, while those who failed would execute the directives of this former group. They had proven their courage, and expedience, but this test would prove their justice. On the day of the exam Cato laid outside the hall, clutching the goddess. He was disguised as a beggar and looked to be bleeding from the gut. The boys came by first light and rushed past the prostate man into the hall. Cato called for aid but was not answered. At last a few boys stopped to check his wounds and helped him to his feet. These boys brought their teacher to one of their homes and fed him. Cato washed his face of the grime and dirt and loosed his rotting tunic, revealing his armor. You have done well my sons, Cato said. You are fit to rule others.Many were wrestlers, though a few were not.

Cato called for the young ones and gathered them together. Dirty and vicious, spitting and clawing. Tell who reared this one, Cato said, pointing from child to child. When Cato saw that the children were bastards, he spoke to the warriors. While your people cannibalized each other in the field, you could not. Something inside rebelled against that custom, and you found solace in strength, order and spirit. The forests whispered to be tamed. And you took up the camp bed and cloak as a fish in the stream is compelled to follow the current. Though few, you are worthy captains all. You are the fathers of these, and if any other say no, show them spear tips.

You, the others, you shall not eat your leaf today, nor work up a vicious sweat. This day you shall sweat sweetly. Go forth and build a great hall. Before the door erect a monument of a woman as such. In her are vibrant eyes which conjure in men a will to do great things. A right straight posture with the gaze of an eagle. She holds a shield. Painted on the face is the great owl clutching a sword. Her beauty is serene and made modest by a simple tunic, a broad helm, the locks secured for war. A confidence of one who has warded off the molestations of your kind. She is posted at ready with a spear in her white hand, a snake coiled about the bare feet. Cato’s heart swells with remembrance of a time not far removed when he gazed upon her. This goddess shall be your mother, and the mother of all to come.

I walked outside of my room with the dog walking in front of me during the night, right before Orcus goes to bed. I spot Orcus readying her lunch for tomorrow in the kitchen, I slip into the bathroom. I hear “no, no, no, no!” implying that she doesn’t want me in the bathroom. I pull the bathroom door behind me and grin, holding it so it does not closed yet. I close it a few seconds later and lock it. And then the most awesome thing happened. I spontaneously delivered a super villain laugh and an insidious grin, but without consciously doing it or trying to be funny to myself. When Orcus came to nag me “how long are you going to be in there?” as she always absurdly does, I answered “Your nagging will not rush my tempo to any extent whatsoever” in a moderately evil voice. I am… the Bathroom Lurker!

Should the job of a reference librarian in assisting patrons be to “Serve Their Needs, Not Their Wants?” In other words, if you couldn’t be both, what would you rather be: popular or right?

This question is tricky to answer because it can only be answered after a deeper ethical issue beyond library science is addressed: should those with the wisdom and power do what is right, or should they do what works? I think the implication of the question is that how we perceive our relationship to other human beings might have ramifications in regard to our service to them. As Vanessa succinctly put it: most people come to a reference desk seeking help in finding a specific item, or they come for general advice on a topic of research. In the former instance, there is no ethical dilemma, but there may be in the latter. In the former we encounter a would-be expert who is looking to inform himself on a specific topic in order to answer a question, in the latter we are asked to be a teacher, at least in the sense that we are given authority as a gateway to new knowledge. What collections we choose reflects upon our own ethical dispositions: are we offering them what is easiest to understand and to find, just to satisfy them, or are we offering them something which will serve the needs of a virtuous citizen?

This is the classical dichotomy between Erasmus and Machiavelli. Erasmus through Education of a Christian Prince advocated leaders who upheld moral imperatives in order to raise their charges to noble states of mind, while Machiavelli’s Prince advocated a ruthless and pragmatic politic based on what is, not what could be. If Erasmus was a librarian, I think he would cater to the needs of the individual, based on knowledge of the good and of virtue, what would nourish the individual. Machiavelli might look upon it differently: giving them what they want so that they are pacified, and less likely to cause problems. Of course, it’s bad philosophy to conjecture in such a manner, but the underlying themes are relevant and so is the fundamental question underpinning both works: what is the role of a leader in influencing the habits and knowledge of those who ask for him to lead? A librarian who considers himself a professional in the technical sense might cater swiftly to the wants, but a librarian who considers himself a librarian in vocation might think differently. For a vocation is more than simply a means of acquiring a paycheck, it’s a work which defines a person, and so with it the person looks beyond its mere technical obligations. How will you be remembered in death?

Machiavelli might say that it’s important to be both popular and right in the sense that you have two faces. One face caters to the wants and expectations of a capricious public, while the other is hidden and knows the right, working skillful machinations to bring it about for the greater good at expense of momentary righteousness. Erasmus might say that we leaders, the librarians, should always attend to the right, and hopefully by our example, inspire those who seek us to lead them to favor the right rather than the wants themselves.

Personally, I side with the Erasmus line of reasoning, as it is an ethical credo which underlies everything I do, not only librarianship. If possible show people the right, so that we might live in a world befitting of our nature. Ultimately the wisest individual has knowledge of what is and what is not needed, as derived from reason, and so might rightfully want. Perfect virtue exists in wanting what is righteous.

***

You’re right in the sense that what is popular and right (or want and need) is not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they do tend to be opposed. For example: a heroin addict wants heroin, but living day by day in a drug-addled haze, exploiting everyone around you to get your next fix, is not right, or needed (the chemical aspect of the addiction excepted). In this scenario what is popular and right is mutually exclusive. This is an extreme example, but it’s a clear one to most people. There are more subtle examples that are just as clear to those with greater shares of knowledge and wisdom, and those with the latter must have the inclination to steer those with less a share to the right.

As I said, the wise man wants what is right, what is needed, so they are not mutually exclusive. Yet, the unwise often want what is neither right nor needed. If we have the opportunity to steer them right, why don’t we? Herein the big issue is revealed: we must have a notion of our relationship and duties in regard to other human beings before we can answer the superficial questions.