For the next few days or so, I'm probably going to be making a blog post per day, as I tend to write everything at once, then go "Oh **** That's all I had!"

1. Playing Olden Games.

I, like many people, enjoy reliving the memories of older games every once in a while. Zork: Grand Inquisitor is probably my most recent example, and probably one of the most memorable PC games of my childhood (Other than Doom II). I remember playing it when I was just eight or nine years old, not understanding any of it, but still having a damn blast. Z:GI plays like Myst, a standard point-and-click adventure game, except it's funny. That's the whole reason I love the game, it's actually funny. In stark contrast to Zork: Nemesis (Don't play it in the dark), Z:GI is lighthearted, not too hard, and a lot of fun. Or at least it was when I was little.

When I went back to play it a few weeks ago, it took quite a few tries to get it running (which is to be expected). But when I actually started playing it, I felt that it had lost a lot of it's charm. When you're nine, you think everything's funny and new. It's just not the same when you've matured a bit. Compounding it is how dreadful the cutscenes were, I know they were good for it's time, but seriously, it's like they hired random people off the street, gave them a script, then handed them a few beers to make it funnier. I think the real problem is that since I played the game so much when I was little, I knew how to do EVERYTHING by heart, so I got the entire game done in just a few hours. Meh, maybe I should just stick to semi-old games.

2. Communism

It's an economic system.

3. E3

I guess I should put a bit about it in, as IT'S THE ONLY GOD DAMN THING EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Mirror's Edge, Spore, Fallout 3. That's all I'm looking at/forward to in relation to E3.

Might as well get this thing rolling, in the hopes I don't forget about it (as I probably will).

I recently read "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan, which left a lasting impact on how I think. The book itself is about skepticism in today's society, and the reasoning behind various psuedo-sciences (homeopathy, ESP, dowsing, etc.). It got me thinking about a lot of beliefs held by people today, and why they hold them despite the lack of evidence supporting it.

For example, Homeopathy is the belief that by diluting a toxin in water, and then consuming that water, the person will build an immunity or resistance to this toxin. Most notably is the usage of this to build one's resistance against something like Poison Ivy. My initial thought were, "Well, it makes a bit of sense that you can build an immunity against something by taking a lowered/diluted dosage of it. It might work like Capsaicin, where you can slowly build up your tolerance against it by consuming it." Again, these were my initial thoughts. After looking into it more, I found that Homeopaths believed that the more diluted a substance was, the stronger it's resistive effects were. AKA, a drop of poison ivy oil in a bottle had much weaker homeopathic effects that a drop of poison ivy oil in a swimming pool.

A bit odd, if I understand it correctly. So the more diluted a substance is, the better it is for you?

I read into some homeopathic suppliers, and found that they label the "potency" of their remedies like this:

"5X to 30X, 5C to 30C, 200C, 1M" (Source if you're interested.)

A quick google later and I found what it meant.

1X means a ratio of 1:10 between water and the substance. So 1 part substance, 10 parts water. 2x would mean 1:100; 3x is 1:1000, and so on. That's the X-scale.

The C-scale is basically 1:100^C. So 1C is 1:100, 2C is 1:10,000, and 3C is 1:1,000,000.

The higher the ratio, the greater the "potency" of the remedy. To put dosages such as 30C into perspective, you'd need one molecule of substance for 10^60 molecules of water. Strangely enough, there's only 4.4*10^46 molecules of water in the entire world's oceans combined. So basically, all you're paying for is a bottle of water. Pure water, that's it

Furthermore, there's no actual clinical evidence to support any of this. Any improvement of a person's condition is likely to just be a result of the placebo effect, since all you're basically giving the person is pills full of nothing. If an actual double blind trial was carried out, and provided actual evidence that Homeopathic treatments worked, THEN you might have some actual reasoning to spend money on pills.

Otherwise it's just one giant waste of money. One that the UK government funds, I might add.

It'd be nice if it would actually update quickly. Back on Ye Olden GameFAQs, we didn't have any of this here "imagery". Text-only I always say. Just like gaming, the real golden age was the MUDs. Now we have this new fangled SCUMM engine. Who keeps track of it all!