Today is Veteran's Day / Armistice day, a day I know today is usually to celebrate peace. But this day, it was slightly different: I finally did it, did what many have thought almost impossible. I had to leave my NES on for almost 2 weeks, but finally, on 11-11-11, at 3:23 PM, I beat Ninja Gaiden. Huzzah! A game even the AVGN couldn't beat (at least in his tribute review)!
Every time I close my eyes, I still see all of Act VI in my head. You must replay it So. Many. Times. Gah, stupid eagles and monkeys!
I know I'm hardly the first, and that the first game is no Ninja Gaiden III, but dammit, I'm happy with myself right now. Perseverance works! (Should I say that procrastination works? Either way, the little red light on the NES almost seemed to be taunting me every night as I went to sleep...)
Photos of the moment below. Sorry for the cell phone pics of a TV, but I had to grab my phone (the closest thing to me) to record this moment.
And now the NES is off for a well deserved rest; it did me proud, never glitched once. And then, after a break, I can finally play some other games. Once again, huzzah!
Edited to add: And see you next!
So, yesterday, as change for some coffee, I received four cents. As I enjoyed my coffee, I played with my pennies as I often do, unfortunately misplacing two. But as I later made my way back to my car, I took a look at the two that were left.
The years are 2003 and 1923. Not only is 1923 the oldest cent I have received in quite a long while, but, as you may notice, the two cents, which I was lucky to still possess, were produced exactly 80 years apart. 80 years ago this month, in June 1928 (thanks, Wikipedia!), Amelia Earhart became the first woman to successfully fly across the Atlantic Ocean. But that's not the whole story. On the exact same day, June 13, one year earlier in 1927, Charles Lindbergh received his tickertape parade in New York City. But wait, there's more! In 1928, 80 years ago, on July 27th (notice, 27), Radclyffe Hall published The Well of Loneliness!
I don't think I need to point out what all this means. Coincidence? I think
(I thought of subtitling this piece Damn you Wikipedia!, but couldn't really find a way to work it in. Oh, snap, I just did. I also happen to think this is perfecetly acceptable posting after nothing for a month. Um, ...really?)
I think we now know what Wikipedia's position on the law is. It just seems so, well, so appropriate somehow.
See this discussion for more info. I know the art is kind of lame, but hey, what do you want for a couple hour's work? Designed for shirts, or whatever!
You can buy one here, or feel free to use the image to make your own. I also included a .GIF for transparency goodness (the .PNG was just too freakin' big for my bandwidth).
Whilst researching excercize bikes, I found the above image here.
I'm not really sure I want to know what's going on in this picture...
"Maybe the time has come for Wikipedia to amend its famous slogan. Maybe it should call itself "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit on the condition that said person meets the requirements laid out in Wikipedia Code 234.56, subsections A34-A58, A65, B7 (codicil 5674), and follows the procedures specified in Wikipedia Statutes 31 - 1007 as well as Secret Wikipedia Scroll SC72 (Wikipedia Decoder Ring required)."
A very interesting article by Nicholas Carr which you can read here. It talks about the rising scourge of Deletionsim on Wikipedia. </Trotskyist language>
I must say I notice this to be a significant problem. On Wikipedia, space is cheap. IMNSHO, as much as possible should be included on Wikipedia. There are well over 6 billion people on this planet; some significant percentage will be very interested in a topic another group considers "obscure." Sure, quality and NPOV need be followed*, but that's why anyone can edit Wikipedia. Deletion of an article should be akin to capital punishment in criminal law: only used where it is thought absolutely necessary. Else, the knowledge base that is Wikipedia can't grow.
*A note: I've always wondered about ways of including "popular perceptions" within articles while retaining NPOV. I understand they are sometimes at loggerheads, and often the main page should simply be facts. I also understand the perception can be hard to measure and balance. But often, especially with historical periods, people, ideas, actions, and things, changing popular perception is an important component (at least to this person with a more-than-passing interest in Cultural Studies). Perhaps a second page is required, or perhaps an entirely separate wiki. But it is an idea that I believe is worth exploring.
Check out the date. And then the car number.
I wonder if it's a sign?
Well, I mean, a know it's a sign, but is it a... oh, nevermind.
Apparently, they couldn't be convinced to sell their house for the motorway project, and successfully argued that the historical value of the house was enough to not justify its via eminent domain.
Pyhrric victory comes to mind. But you don't have to worry about neighbors. At least of the stationary kind.
Update: BBC article with more details.
Highly recommended article from the Colombia Journalism Review. Very interesting points, which I need some time to mull over. Would be interested in any of your opinions.