Backup Solution

For the first time I've gotten around to doing a decent backup solution for my semi-important files. I've had my critical files (i.e., source-code) backed-up for a long time using source code repositories of various kinds (mostly subversion.) My photos I store on flickr. For documents that I move around a lot I use either google docs or Dropbox. But what about books, music, videos (films, tv shows, etc.) and computer game files?

For these third-party media, I tried a couple of solutions.

1. Internet storage (the best of which, for large amounts of data, seems to be carbonite.)
2. Specialised backup software
3. Simple folder syncing software by Microsoft (SyncToy)
   

The first option is good. It's about $70 a year, almost completely safe (no-one is like to steal the internet, though the back-up company could go out of business). But it's fairly slow to back-up and, therefore, recovery would be slow too. (I have about 1 tera-byte of data that I would preferably back-up.)

The specialsed software that I tried were way too complicated or had poor interfaces, so I ditched them.

SyncToy is pretty good. I have six folders on my main hard drive. Each of those folders back-ups to one of two secondary drives. I have scheduled the folders to sync every time I start my PC. In this way, two drives would have to fail or my computer would have to be stolen before I would lose all my data. I can live with that.

RuneQuest II vs D&D

In a lot of ways RuneQuest and D&D are similar. However, everything works better in RuneQuest. Such as:

• RuneQuest uses skills whenever a character attempts to do anything. e.g., singing, thieving, shooting, casting, etc. Skills all work in the same way and they all make sense. No base attack bonuses, saving throws, ability score checks, synergy, obscure exceptions, etc.
• There are no classes in RuneQuest. If you want to create a thief, you devote skills that are useful to thieving (sleight, stealth, evade, disguise). If want a cleric (or healer), you devote skills and magic to healing. If you want to create a unique character, combine unrelated skills and spells.
• D&D is full of redundancy. e.g., Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, Cure Critical Wounds, etc. In RuneQuest, there is just "Heal," the caster can increase the amount of healing as they improve their magical ability.
• RuneQuest combat is more than just spatial, it is temporal too. Timing is key. This gives a whole new tactical layer to the combat that is missing from D&D.
  
• Combat is a lot more deadly in RuneQuest. Fights don't go on and on like they do in D&D.
  
• There is locational damage in RuneQuest (head, arms, chest, etc.)
  
• Hit Points don't increase over time in RuneQuest. i.e., you don't miraculously become more resilient to pain.
• There is no alignment in RuneQuest. You define your morality rather than fitting into an obscure and confusing category. (What the hell is Chaotic Neutral suppose to mean?)
  
• In RuneQuest, armour works like one imagines it would. There is no weird abstraction (i.e., Armour Class). There are armour points that apply to parts of the body. If you are wounded, you subtract the armour points from the damage dealt. e.g., a Broo does 6 damage to the left arm. Leather armour on the left arm has 2 armour points. 6 - 2 = 4 damage. Simple and logical.
• There are no levels in RuneQuest. At a particular juncture, players are rewarded with improvement points that they can use to improve skills or characteristics. There is no endlessly waiting until your character finally goes up a level. Beautiful.
• RuneQuest doesn't have the utterly frustrating Vancian magic system. Okay, not entirely true, divine magic uses a Vancian system, but sorcery and common magic doesn't.
• Skill checks are slightly simpler and require less tedious communication in RuneQuest. In D&D, the player rolls and applies bonuses (e.g., 1D20 + 5) and compares it with a number supplied by the Dungeon Master (e.g., need 17 or above). In RuneQuest, the player will generally already know the chance of success (e.g., 68% chance) and can just roll and declare the result (critical success, success, failure or fumble). This is a subtle difference, but it saves constantly needing to ask "What's the number I need?" or "Did I succeed?" It puts slightly more power on to the player. This a good thing.
• Since 2000, D&D editions have been advocating the use of miniatures in combat. They even have special rules that apply best with miniatures (attacks of opportunity, movement rules to get past other characters/pieces, etc.) There is nothing wrong with using miniatures. However, one must be careful because miniatures reduce the luscious 3D environment of an imagined scene to a grided 2D battlemap with right-angles. On a battlemap it's difficult to visualise attacks from above (balustrades, trees, fly-by attacks) and below (burrowing creatures or a chasm traversed by a suspension-bridge). You can't see sloping or uneven ground. Stairs and various forms of cover (walls, bushes and tables) are often difficult to represent. Your imagination can handle all of this better than a battlemap. RuneQuest has a cinematic feel with not a single mention of miniatures or battlemaps. All of those environments mentioned above are easily supported by the RuneQuest game system. D&D can do it too, but it struggles.
• With D&D and D20 games in general, it takes a bit of thinking to figure out your probability of success. E.g., you require 23+ for success and roll 1d20+8. You have to do a bit of maths to figure out the chance of success. It's more transparent in RuneQuest, everything uses percentiles, e.g. 25% chance.
• Even though ability scores (or characteristics) are created the same way in both games (i.e., 3d6 or 4d6, drop the lowest, etc.) they're actually used in RuneQuest. In D&D, you roll the scores, derive a "modifier," and never use the score again, for anything. This "modifier" is used as proxy for everything. The obvious question is, why bother with ability scores at all? Just roll for the modifier instead. Ability scores in D&D are just one more number that you don't use. In RuneQuest, the scores themselves are used as a basis for basically everything.

Kindle vs iPad vs "real" books

My Kindle arrived yesterday. It's good. Unlike most people who have commented on it, I bought it after getting an iPad. I was so impressed by how easy it was to read with an electronic device that I decided to buy something dedicated to it. It works exactly as expected.

Good things about ePaper devices (Kindle, Kobo, Nook, etc.) compared with a tablet:

• Smaller and lighter
• Battery lasts longer
• Can read outdoors
• Better quality screen

Goods things about the iPad, for reading:

• Big screen, colour and zoom (i.e., I wouldn't use an ePaper device for PDFs)
  
• Self lit (good for reading at night without a light)

One stupid thing that both types of devices don't really understand yet is that they're not paper books. e.g., the software is happy to end a page half-way through a sentence. For what purpose? To force me to keep reading? What it should do is end on the last complete sentence that fits on the page. A very minor complaint, however.

It's a new age for books. What will happen:

• Individual prices will plummet (they're already zero for books out of copyright)
• You can have any number of books and they take up the same space as one. Actually, the idea of book having/ownership is now completely absurd.
  
• Nothing will ever go out of print
• Quality will replace availability (many, many times I have wanted a book and bought something that wasn't as good because I couldn't find the one I wanted)
• People will fetishise "physical" books like they do LPs/CDs, DVDs and everything else that becomes immaterial. What they don't understand is that it's not the form that's important, it's particular instances. i.e., The Secret is a shit book no matter how it's read.

Is ePaper the coming communist revolution? Unfortunately, no. It's just nice to be able to stop collecting another type of thing.

Kick Ass

Kick Ass: Clever combination of Watchmen and The Professional. Excellent, ironic portrayal of vigilante fascism. Love the controversy and critical response sections on wikipedia. E.g.

Roger Ebert gave the film one out of four stars. He called the film "morally reprehensible", appalled by the violent scenes in which an 11-year-old girl murders dozens of gang members and is then almost beaten to death by an adult man. "When kids in the age range of this movie's home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny."

Does it Robert? Does it really? 'Cause, you know, I was laughing quite a bit through those scenes.

Food Inc.

One of the best documentaries about the food industry I've seen. A US bias, but most of it applies to Australia (feed lots, GM soy, production houses for broilers, etc.). The annoying organic farmers and family farmers don't dominate.

This doco beats, by a long margin, anything Michael Moore could ever do. Really interesting.

iPad

5 reasons not to buy an iPad:

1. No rich text editing with Safari (no google docs, no blogger, etc.) Huh? Why not? Pathetic.
2. Apple doesn't allow other music players (I want WinAmp.)
3. Web-browsing is slow. Don't expect the speeds/convenience of a desktop/laptop
4. No find text in web-page
5. Can't delete default apps (who's going to use iPod, iTunes, etc.?)

5 reasons to buy an iPad:

1. Say goodbye to RSI
2. There are some great games that use the new UI really well (e.g. Osmos, Labyrinth 2, Train Controller 2). Even old games are great (Civ Rev, Wesnoth)
3. Reading with GoodReader, iBooks or Kindle is very good. I think I'm transitioning away from physical books.
4. The device syncs perfectly with your gmail, calendar and contacts.
5. There are some excellent apps (DropBox, IM+, GoodReader, Table of Elements, Desktop Connect, AirVideo etc.)

I realise that people go on about not having Flash, no camera, no USB, no multi-tasking etc. but none of those things bother me. I'm not even sure I'll bother jailbreaking the iPad. I just don't care.

As it is, I can play games, read, surf the web, instant message, and send email all really well. That's excellent.

As a word, the iPad is "very good." It really is a totally new type of computer. Fix those issues above (all could be done in a single update) and I could do pretty much all I want on it.