http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60598/title/When_intuition_and_math_probably_look_wrong
Makes my head hurt. Took me two reads to really understand it.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
D&D 4E: A quick intro to my character and some basic mechanics.
Okay, lets see. My thoughts on D&D 4E. I guess, to make kindof a vague summary, I'll agree with something I heard someone else (I can't remember who) say once; it's oddly almost like Wizards took World of Warcraft and merged it with 3.5 to create 4E.
To start, you still have the normal array of six attributes; except instead of rolling, they really seem to prefer purchasing in a point-based system. They even give a bunch of examples of different attribute arrays you could pick. You still pick a race (though the "basic" races included in the PHB include half-dragons), and still pick a class (though the PHB selection is reduced to not include Bards, barbarians, druids, sorcerers, paladins, or several others...). You still have feats, you still have skills, you still buy equipment - but then there's an awfully large number of things different.
Weapon proficiencies; you no longer get penalties for not being proficient with a weapon, but rather get a bonus for being proficient. For example, daggers have a proficiency bonus of +3; so someone who's proficient in them gets a +3 bonus to their attack rolls with them.
Bonuses in general have an interesting twist; instead of having a to-hit progression, you get a flat bonus of 1/2 your level (rounded down) on almost all checks. This includes, amongst other things, to-hit rolls and skill rolls, though not saving throws.
Mentioning saving throws, now instead of "save vs. fortitude" or "save vs. reflexes", you have four defenses: AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower. So if a mage hits me with an AoE spell, I don't save vs. reflex; he attacks vs. my reflex. A fine point, perhaps, but a relevant one. Saving throws now are generally very simple - 1-10 you fail, 11-20 you succeed, and success means whatever effect you're saving against fades. Bonuses from race, class, feats, and powers apply, of course; but there's not a target, as a rule. Just a 50/50 check.
Hit points are no longer random at all; they're purely based on level, class, and Constitution. Well, possibly also based on feats and race and such, but still constant given your character setup.
Healing is done... Oddly. They introduced something called Healing Surges, which is a combination of your ability to recover and your endurance. A healing surge is essentially defined as the ability to heal 25% of your hit points, which is pretty constant; but the number of healing surges you get varies wildly - though again it's constant based on other things. For example, my Halfling Rogue Garrett (with an, admittedly, fairly crappy Con of 11) has 58 max HP, and 6 surges/day for 14 HP per shot. Dak the Githzerai Battlemind, however, has 14 or 16 surges/day (I can't remember which) for something like 26 HP per. Healing is based off of this. So, for example, all characters get "Second Wind" as an encounter power (see below) that lets them use one healing surge for its face value. A healing potion uses a healing surge, but the Minor healing Potions I have are a flat 10 HP, not the full surge value. Priest healing spells will tend to heal someone by using one of their surges and then giving them their surge value + some bonus. Healing Surges can also be used instead of damage for things like failure; while travelling overland, when we managed to seriously flub our Endurance check while pushing ourselves, most of us (not including the Rogue, because of a bit of good luck) got penalized one healing surge.
Skills, now, are not done through skill points; rather, you're trained or un-trained. So rogues are automatically trained in... I want to say Stealth and Thievery? And every class has a list of trainable skills (which can be modified, of course, by feats, race, and background). So I start trained in Stealth and Thievery, but also pick 4 more off my list. And you can take a feat called "Skill Training" to pick up another trained skill; so my Rogue is currently unusually skilled, with training in Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise and Thievery. The bonus, however, as a rule is stat bonus + 1/2 level + 5 if trained + other miscellaneous bonuses. So, my Endurance check is +4 (+0 for con, +0 for miscellaneous, +0 for being untrained, and +4 for being level 8). My Acrobatics, on the other hand, is +18 (+6 for Dexterity 22, +5 for being trained, +4 for being level 8, +2 for being a Halfling, and +1 for having Heroic Gloves of Agility).
The full list of skills is Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate, Nature, perception, Religion, Stealth, Streetwise, and Thievery. This is greatly reduced from previous editions; most importantly, things like Perform, Profession, and individual Knowledge skills are either combined (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Streetwise for knowledge skills) or just gone (now, *anyone* can be a rock musician on the weekend!) and assumed to be an RP tool.
Okay, classes and races and various inherent abilities. Everyone gets them, and they change for different classes. In addition, though, every class choice includes a "path". From the base PHB, as a rogue I can choose to be a Thug or an Artful Dodger; while a ranger can pick to be two-weapon or archer.
For example, as a Rogue, I get First Strike (gain combat advantage against anything which hasn't acted yet in the encounter); Rogue Weapon talent (thrown shurikens count as 1 damage die larger, and I'm +1 to hit with daggers); and Sneak Attack (once per round, I can add my sneak attack damage bonus to one opponent I have combat advantage against). As a Halfling, I get Bold (+5 to saving throws against fear), and Nimble Reactions (+2 bonus against attacks of opportunity). Then for my path, I chose Artful Dodger, which lets me add my Charisma mod to AC against attacks of opportunity.
But I mentioned above "Second Wind" being an "encounter power", and this is really getting into the meat of it. Powers are the heart and soul of the 4E system, and understanding them will really let you decide if you like the system or not. They're categorized in various ways. For example, any given power's source can be Racial, Class, Default, Magic Item, or something else; its type can be At-Will, Encounter, Daily, or Immediate. Every class has a set of base powers and abilities; every race does; and then you gain more off of a fairly large list as you advance. An At-Will power can be used any time it's allowed (if it's a standard action, for example, it's more limited and complicated than a minor action or a move-equivalent). An Encounter power can be used once until you perform a short rest (2-5 minutes just to catch your breath, which incidentally also lets you use one healing surge if you want). A Daily Power can be used once before a long rest (generally 8 hours of little/no activity - camping, pretty much). The thing is, Powers dominate all the classes. Most people use powers instead of basic attacks except in extreme circumstances; spellcasters use Powers to represent their spells as well as their built-in abilities. It all revolves around these.
Okay, lets give you some examples - my level 1 base powers. First, being a PC, I get Second Wind, which I describe above. Next, as a Halfling, I get Second Chance: this is an encounter power that, when an attack hits, I can force the attacker to re-roll. The second roll stands whether it's better or worse. Then, as a first-level Rogue, I get two at-wills, an encounter, and a daily. The ones I ended up with are Deft Strike (At Will, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, special: you can move 2 squares before the attack, hit: 1W + dex bonus damage); Sly Flourish (At Will, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, hit: 1W + dex bonus + cha bonus damage); Positioning Strike (Encounter, dex attack vs. Willpower, Melee only, hit: 1W + dex damage, plus - since I'm an Artful Dodger - I get to move them a number of squares equal to my cha bonus); and Confounding Attack (daily, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, hit: 2W + dex damage + they are forced to make an attack against an adjacent ally and - if I have combat advantage against either them or their ally - I can add my sneak attack damage to their attack). At 2nd level, he picked up Fleeting Ghost (Utility, at-will: I can move my full movement and make a stealth check without taking the normal penalty). At 3rd, I got Bait and Switch (Encounter, dex attack vs. Willpower, melee only, hit: 2W + dex damage, and can then switch place with the target and then move a number of squares equal to my cha mod). 5th was Walking Wounded (Daily, dex attack vs. Fortitude, melee or ranged, miss: half damage and no secondary effect, hit: 2W + dex damage, and the target is knocked prone. If they use more than half their movement in an action until the end of the encounter, they fall prone after moving). 6th was Quick Fingers (Encounter Power, I can use any Thievery skill effect as a Minor action even if it would normally be a Standard action - most importantly, including Sleight-of-Hand and Pick Pockets). At 7th was Sand in the Eyes (Encounter, dex attack vs. Reflex, melee only, hit: 1W + dex damage and the target is blinded until the end of my next turn). And then, I get an encounter power to let me re-roll damage, off of my magical lucky dagger. And I get powers off the potions I'm carrying ("consumable" ones, as opposed to at-will or encounter). And I get a daily power to resist 5 damage off my Cloak of Resistance. And I could get powers off of Feats, if I hadn't spent them all on skill training. :)
That was all a lot to take in, but it gives you an idea of how my Rogue works. I have a bunch of "Power Cards", each with one of these powers on it. I can print them out, cut them up, and carry them like a "hand" or "deck". Or, the character sheet has a list with check-boxes for when they're used. Then, when I use one, I can put down the card, and simply pick up the appropriate ones after combat or after resting; or when I use them, I can check them off on my list and erase the checks when they refresh.
And yeah, everything centers around powers.
Anyway. For those of you who actually made it through this, hope you have a better idea how it all works now. :)
To start, you still have the normal array of six attributes; except instead of rolling, they really seem to prefer purchasing in a point-based system. They even give a bunch of examples of different attribute arrays you could pick. You still pick a race (though the "basic" races included in the PHB include half-dragons), and still pick a class (though the PHB selection is reduced to not include Bards, barbarians, druids, sorcerers, paladins, or several others...). You still have feats, you still have skills, you still buy equipment - but then there's an awfully large number of things different.
Weapon proficiencies; you no longer get penalties for not being proficient with a weapon, but rather get a bonus for being proficient. For example, daggers have a proficiency bonus of +3; so someone who's proficient in them gets a +3 bonus to their attack rolls with them.
Bonuses in general have an interesting twist; instead of having a to-hit progression, you get a flat bonus of 1/2 your level (rounded down) on almost all checks. This includes, amongst other things, to-hit rolls and skill rolls, though not saving throws.
Mentioning saving throws, now instead of "save vs. fortitude" or "save vs. reflexes", you have four defenses: AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Willpower. So if a mage hits me with an AoE spell, I don't save vs. reflex; he attacks vs. my reflex. A fine point, perhaps, but a relevant one. Saving throws now are generally very simple - 1-10 you fail, 11-20 you succeed, and success means whatever effect you're saving against fades. Bonuses from race, class, feats, and powers apply, of course; but there's not a target, as a rule. Just a 50/50 check.
Hit points are no longer random at all; they're purely based on level, class, and Constitution. Well, possibly also based on feats and race and such, but still constant given your character setup.
Healing is done... Oddly. They introduced something called Healing Surges, which is a combination of your ability to recover and your endurance. A healing surge is essentially defined as the ability to heal 25% of your hit points, which is pretty constant; but the number of healing surges you get varies wildly - though again it's constant based on other things. For example, my Halfling Rogue Garrett (with an, admittedly, fairly crappy Con of 11) has 58 max HP, and 6 surges/day for 14 HP per shot. Dak the Githzerai Battlemind, however, has 14 or 16 surges/day (I can't remember which) for something like 26 HP per. Healing is based off of this. So, for example, all characters get "Second Wind" as an encounter power (see below) that lets them use one healing surge for its face value. A healing potion uses a healing surge, but the Minor healing Potions I have are a flat 10 HP, not the full surge value. Priest healing spells will tend to heal someone by using one of their surges and then giving them their surge value + some bonus. Healing Surges can also be used instead of damage for things like failure; while travelling overland, when we managed to seriously flub our Endurance check while pushing ourselves, most of us (not including the Rogue, because of a bit of good luck) got penalized one healing surge.
Skills, now, are not done through skill points; rather, you're trained or un-trained. So rogues are automatically trained in... I want to say Stealth and Thievery? And every class has a list of trainable skills (which can be modified, of course, by feats, race, and background). So I start trained in Stealth and Thievery, but also pick 4 more off my list. And you can take a feat called "Skill Training" to pick up another trained skill; so my Rogue is currently unusually skilled, with training in Acrobatics, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Streetwise and Thievery. The bonus, however, as a rule is stat bonus + 1/2 level + 5 if trained + other miscellaneous bonuses. So, my Endurance check is +4 (+0 for con, +0 for miscellaneous, +0 for being untrained, and +4 for being level 8). My Acrobatics, on the other hand, is +18 (+6 for Dexterity 22, +5 for being trained, +4 for being level 8, +2 for being a Halfling, and +1 for having Heroic Gloves of Agility).
The full list of skills is Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Bluff, Diplomacy, Dungeoneering, Endurance, Heal, History, Insight, Intimidate, Nature, perception, Religion, Stealth, Streetwise, and Thievery. This is greatly reduced from previous editions; most importantly, things like Perform, Profession, and individual Knowledge skills are either combined (Arcana, Dungeoneering, History, Streetwise for knowledge skills) or just gone (now, *anyone* can be a rock musician on the weekend!) and assumed to be an RP tool.
Okay, classes and races and various inherent abilities. Everyone gets them, and they change for different classes. In addition, though, every class choice includes a "path". From the base PHB, as a rogue I can choose to be a Thug or an Artful Dodger; while a ranger can pick to be two-weapon or archer.
For example, as a Rogue, I get First Strike (gain combat advantage against anything which hasn't acted yet in the encounter); Rogue Weapon talent (thrown shurikens count as 1 damage die larger, and I'm +1 to hit with daggers); and Sneak Attack (once per round, I can add my sneak attack damage bonus to one opponent I have combat advantage against). As a Halfling, I get Bold (+5 to saving throws against fear), and Nimble Reactions (+2 bonus against attacks of opportunity). Then for my path, I chose Artful Dodger, which lets me add my Charisma mod to AC against attacks of opportunity.
But I mentioned above "Second Wind" being an "encounter power", and this is really getting into the meat of it. Powers are the heart and soul of the 4E system, and understanding them will really let you decide if you like the system or not. They're categorized in various ways. For example, any given power's source can be Racial, Class, Default, Magic Item, or something else; its type can be At-Will, Encounter, Daily, or Immediate. Every class has a set of base powers and abilities; every race does; and then you gain more off of a fairly large list as you advance. An At-Will power can be used any time it's allowed (if it's a standard action, for example, it's more limited and complicated than a minor action or a move-equivalent). An Encounter power can be used once until you perform a short rest (2-5 minutes just to catch your breath, which incidentally also lets you use one healing surge if you want). A Daily Power can be used once before a long rest (generally 8 hours of little/no activity - camping, pretty much). The thing is, Powers dominate all the classes. Most people use powers instead of basic attacks except in extreme circumstances; spellcasters use Powers to represent their spells as well as their built-in abilities. It all revolves around these.
Okay, lets give you some examples - my level 1 base powers. First, being a PC, I get Second Wind, which I describe above. Next, as a Halfling, I get Second Chance: this is an encounter power that, when an attack hits, I can force the attacker to re-roll. The second roll stands whether it's better or worse. Then, as a first-level Rogue, I get two at-wills, an encounter, and a daily. The ones I ended up with are Deft Strike (At Will, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, special: you can move 2 squares before the attack, hit: 1W + dex bonus damage); Sly Flourish (At Will, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, hit: 1W + dex bonus + cha bonus damage); Positioning Strike (Encounter, dex attack vs. Willpower, Melee only, hit: 1W + dex damage, plus - since I'm an Artful Dodger - I get to move them a number of squares equal to my cha bonus); and Confounding Attack (daily, dex attack vs. AC, melee or ranged, hit: 2W + dex damage + they are forced to make an attack against an adjacent ally and - if I have combat advantage against either them or their ally - I can add my sneak attack damage to their attack). At 2nd level, he picked up Fleeting Ghost (Utility, at-will: I can move my full movement and make a stealth check without taking the normal penalty). At 3rd, I got Bait and Switch (Encounter, dex attack vs. Willpower, melee only, hit: 2W + dex damage, and can then switch place with the target and then move a number of squares equal to my cha mod). 5th was Walking Wounded (Daily, dex attack vs. Fortitude, melee or ranged, miss: half damage and no secondary effect, hit: 2W + dex damage, and the target is knocked prone. If they use more than half their movement in an action until the end of the encounter, they fall prone after moving). 6th was Quick Fingers (Encounter Power, I can use any Thievery skill effect as a Minor action even if it would normally be a Standard action - most importantly, including Sleight-of-Hand and Pick Pockets). At 7th was Sand in the Eyes (Encounter, dex attack vs. Reflex, melee only, hit: 1W + dex damage and the target is blinded until the end of my next turn). And then, I get an encounter power to let me re-roll damage, off of my magical lucky dagger. And I get powers off the potions I'm carrying ("consumable" ones, as opposed to at-will or encounter). And I get a daily power to resist 5 damage off my Cloak of Resistance. And I could get powers off of Feats, if I hadn't spent them all on skill training. :)
That was all a lot to take in, but it gives you an idea of how my Rogue works. I have a bunch of "Power Cards", each with one of these powers on it. I can print them out, cut them up, and carry them like a "hand" or "deck". Or, the character sheet has a list with check-boxes for when they're used. Then, when I use one, I can put down the card, and simply pick up the appropriate ones after combat or after resting; or when I use them, I can check them off on my list and erase the checks when they refresh.
And yeah, everything centers around powers.
Anyway. For those of you who actually made it through this, hope you have a better idea how it all works now. :)
Electoral Cuteness
My personal problem with the electoral college system, at least on a theoretical level:
Lets have a hypothetical country with 50 states, where instead of a direct election of executives for the federal government, there's an electoral college in a kindof indirect or representative democracy. In each state, the popular vote decides what electorates are selected, but the full electorate from that state goes to the candidate. Each state has... Oh, lets say 10 electors average. Whatever. 500's a nice round number.
And yes, I realize that some states are that way while some are not required to do so. Let me just illustrate my point.
Okay. In states 1 through 49 (Aland, Bland, Cland, Dland, all the way through WWland), candidate A (the Awesome one? The Asshat? Whatever...) wins with 50.5% of the popular vote, while candidate B (the Better one? The Bastard?) loses with 49.5%. In state 50 (XXland, I suppose? Look, it's just the way the counting fell, I swear!), candidate B wins with 99.5% of the popular vote.
At this point, candidate A has 49.5% of the overall popular vote, candidate B having 50.5%, and candidate B won the popular opinion; but candidate A has 490 electors, and candidate B has only 10... So the less popular candidate, with a minority of the population (however slight a minority), has won the election in a landslide.
I don't like that. I don't know what a better answer is... But I feel like there should be one. :(
And anyway. Poor Alaska, with only 3 electors! They're the biggest state in the country, with Texas a far second around 1/3 its area! So what if it's the 4th-lowest population, beating out only Vermont, North Dakota, and Wyoming? Think of all the moose! Don't they get a vote?!?
How did this come up? ...I honestly don't remember. I was listening to a video game podcast this morning, and it came to mind. No clue why. Ah, well.
Lets have a hypothetical country with 50 states, where instead of a direct election of executives for the federal government, there's an electoral college in a kindof indirect or representative democracy. In each state, the popular vote decides what electorates are selected, but the full electorate from that state goes to the candidate. Each state has... Oh, lets say 10 electors average. Whatever. 500's a nice round number.
And yes, I realize that some states are that way while some are not required to do so. Let me just illustrate my point.
Okay. In states 1 through 49 (Aland, Bland, Cland, Dland, all the way through WWland), candidate A (the Awesome one? The Asshat? Whatever...) wins with 50.5% of the popular vote, while candidate B (the Better one? The Bastard?) loses with 49.5%. In state 50 (XXland, I suppose? Look, it's just the way the counting fell, I swear!), candidate B wins with 99.5% of the popular vote.
At this point, candidate A has 49.5% of the overall popular vote, candidate B having 50.5%, and candidate B won the popular opinion; but candidate A has 490 electors, and candidate B has only 10... So the less popular candidate, with a minority of the population (however slight a minority), has won the election in a landslide.
I don't like that. I don't know what a better answer is... But I feel like there should be one. :(
And anyway. Poor Alaska, with only 3 electors! They're the biggest state in the country, with Texas a far second around 1/3 its area! So what if it's the 4th-lowest population, beating out only Vermont, North Dakota, and Wyoming? Think of all the moose! Don't they get a vote?!?
How did this come up? ...I honestly don't remember. I was listening to a video game podcast this morning, and it came to mind. No clue why. Ah, well.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Today on Slashdot, emotionally charged story sparks firestorm...
So on Slashdot today, I found this article:
http://cbs13.com/local/marine.widow.verizon.2.1772409.html
The whole thing depresses me greatly. And at the risk of getting people mad at me, I have to admit I feel more sympathy (on the issue of the fee) for Verizon than I do for the widow involved. A number of people - including the media - seem to be crucifying them for this... But I really don't understand why.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's an incredible tragedy that her husband died. I'm glad she's going to be with people who care for her. What I don't completely understand is why this relieves her from contractual obligations. I don't think it's about the money; frankly, in that situation, I don't think I'd be completely lucid if it were me. But after some digging, as far as I can tell, she received a $100,000 death benefit from the armed services, in addition to any life insurance policy; and her husband was not on this contract - only she was. They weren't attempting to charge the fee because her husband died and thus couldn't use his phone; it was because, after he died, she decided to move, and the location wanted to move to did not have full coverage.
I just don't get the mindset where the company is crucified over this. I never have, and I suspect I never will. Big evil corporation, blah blah, but it's not like they maliciously went out of their way to cause trouble. In fact, they did eventually waive the fee - but I'll bet you if it actually went in front of a judge, they'd have won. Oh, they'd have gotten even more bad press, but it wasn't their obligation. So why are they wrong in the first place? Because it's "cruel and heartless to impose this kind of trouble on a grieving widow"? But that is - by the definition of them - exactly the purpose of the armed forces death benefits and life insurance payments; to handle fees like this, costs which are directly and indirectly caused by the poor woman's bereavement and otherwise wouldn't have occured. Why isn't the media pointing out that unless they opted out of the general serviceman's life insurance (at a premium of something like $0.065 per $1,000 coverage, based on what I could find online from the Navy), she received between $150,000 and $500,000? And if there was private coverage, even more?
Where exactly should the line be drawn? And this isn't meant as a snarky, nasty comment, however much some of you may take it that way anyway. It's a serious question. Where exactly are the bounds for this type of thing? Does it only apply to active duty military servicemen abroad? Coast Guard on duty in the US? What about firemen, policemen? How about embedded media in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - after all, however much individuals may disagree with what they perceive as unfair slant from a given news agency, they're risking their lives to bring important information and perspective back to us here. How about the victims of terrorist attacks? Thousands of deaths on 9/11. How about victims of general peace-keeping? I know third-hand (a friend's friend) someone who was killed during a high speed chase; idiot robbed a store and took off, side-swiped a police car who hit her where she'd pulled over... Slammed her into a pole and killed her.
And what should be covered? What should be under this blanket forgiveness? If someone dies, they're obviously not going to be driving their car any more. If it's still under loan, should the loan be forgiven? If it's under lease, should the early-termination clause be forgiven? What if it's the survivor who leased a mini-van, anticipatory to having kids; and now they need something more economic and smaller. Should that be forgiven?
And who? Only spouses? What about fiances? Maybe they already bought a house together. Parents? Maybe they were counting on the kid's income to help support them after retirement. Children? Maybe the kids just started college, and already have $100,000 in college loans the parent was going to pay; or maybe they didn't qualify for good loans, and the parent was just planning on paying it outright before whatever tragedy happened. Should those be forgiven?
When did this type of thing become an entitlement, a right, and not just a kind gesture?
The answer, by the way, to almost all of the above examples, falls into three categories (frequently a combination of them): insurance, administrative benefits, and charity. For 9/11, there were millions and millions of dollars given to affected families - probably billions, when all the insurance policies came into effect. Life insurance payed a huge amount, to every covered victim. The city, state, and federal governments raised and allocated funds for assistance. And numerous organizations - from the Fraternal Order of Police, to the Red Cross, to organizations that sprouted up specifically for the purpose - collected and disbursed millions more.
Look at the letter from the President of the NYSFOP here, relative to the relief fund they set up: http://www.nysfop.org/wtc-relief-fund.htm. Look at the top two bullet points. To assist both injured officers and the families of fallen officers with direct financial assistance; and to assist with education for officers' families. This, this is exactly how - in my opinion - it should be handled. The people who feel responsibility or sympathy for their situation can band together and help defray the costs they have - their unexpected inability to proceed with their lives, through no fault of their own. And that is what happened.
When I die, however nobly or ignobly, I don't expect the world around me to take care of my expenses. I'm not a hero. I'm not fighting to make the world safer by stopping terrorism on the front lines; I'm fighting to make capital area NY health insurance a little bit better, one line of code and one database row at a time. No survivor of mine is going to receive a death benefit beyond what I'm paying for paycheck-to-paycheck. I have life insurance, to cover my child support, to cover my funeral. It's not as much as I'd like - poor general health and poor financials make it difficult, or at least expensive - but it should be enough. And it just irks me that someone else assumes other people should take care of it for them... And then crucifies the company that is in the right, by their contract, when that company doesn't. And for such a paltry amount, too. To me, it's not right for them to complain; it's a mockery of the soldier, that his death should be used as a bludgeon for something like this.
Anyway. I hope I didn't offend anyone with this. Just my $0.02.
http://cbs13.com/local/marine.widow.verizon.2.1772409.html
The whole thing depresses me greatly. And at the risk of getting people mad at me, I have to admit I feel more sympathy (on the issue of the fee) for Verizon than I do for the widow involved. A number of people - including the media - seem to be crucifying them for this... But I really don't understand why.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's an incredible tragedy that her husband died. I'm glad she's going to be with people who care for her. What I don't completely understand is why this relieves her from contractual obligations. I don't think it's about the money; frankly, in that situation, I don't think I'd be completely lucid if it were me. But after some digging, as far as I can tell, she received a $100,000 death benefit from the armed services, in addition to any life insurance policy; and her husband was not on this contract - only she was. They weren't attempting to charge the fee because her husband died and thus couldn't use his phone; it was because, after he died, she decided to move, and the location wanted to move to did not have full coverage.
I just don't get the mindset where the company is crucified over this. I never have, and I suspect I never will. Big evil corporation, blah blah, but it's not like they maliciously went out of their way to cause trouble. In fact, they did eventually waive the fee - but I'll bet you if it actually went in front of a judge, they'd have won. Oh, they'd have gotten even more bad press, but it wasn't their obligation. So why are they wrong in the first place? Because it's "cruel and heartless to impose this kind of trouble on a grieving widow"? But that is - by the definition of them - exactly the purpose of the armed forces death benefits and life insurance payments; to handle fees like this, costs which are directly and indirectly caused by the poor woman's bereavement and otherwise wouldn't have occured. Why isn't the media pointing out that unless they opted out of the general serviceman's life insurance (at a premium of something like $0.065 per $1,000 coverage, based on what I could find online from the Navy), she received between $150,000 and $500,000? And if there was private coverage, even more?
Where exactly should the line be drawn? And this isn't meant as a snarky, nasty comment, however much some of you may take it that way anyway. It's a serious question. Where exactly are the bounds for this type of thing? Does it only apply to active duty military servicemen abroad? Coast Guard on duty in the US? What about firemen, policemen? How about embedded media in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - after all, however much individuals may disagree with what they perceive as unfair slant from a given news agency, they're risking their lives to bring important information and perspective back to us here. How about the victims of terrorist attacks? Thousands of deaths on 9/11. How about victims of general peace-keeping? I know third-hand (a friend's friend) someone who was killed during a high speed chase; idiot robbed a store and took off, side-swiped a police car who hit her where she'd pulled over... Slammed her into a pole and killed her.
And what should be covered? What should be under this blanket forgiveness? If someone dies, they're obviously not going to be driving their car any more. If it's still under loan, should the loan be forgiven? If it's under lease, should the early-termination clause be forgiven? What if it's the survivor who leased a mini-van, anticipatory to having kids; and now they need something more economic and smaller. Should that be forgiven?
And who? Only spouses? What about fiances? Maybe they already bought a house together. Parents? Maybe they were counting on the kid's income to help support them after retirement. Children? Maybe the kids just started college, and already have $100,000 in college loans the parent was going to pay; or maybe they didn't qualify for good loans, and the parent was just planning on paying it outright before whatever tragedy happened. Should those be forgiven?
When did this type of thing become an entitlement, a right, and not just a kind gesture?
The answer, by the way, to almost all of the above examples, falls into three categories (frequently a combination of them): insurance, administrative benefits, and charity. For 9/11, there were millions and millions of dollars given to affected families - probably billions, when all the insurance policies came into effect. Life insurance payed a huge amount, to every covered victim. The city, state, and federal governments raised and allocated funds for assistance. And numerous organizations - from the Fraternal Order of Police, to the Red Cross, to organizations that sprouted up specifically for the purpose - collected and disbursed millions more.
Look at the letter from the President of the NYSFOP here, relative to the relief fund they set up: http://www.nysfop.org/wtc-relief-fund.htm. Look at the top two bullet points. To assist both injured officers and the families of fallen officers with direct financial assistance; and to assist with education for officers' families. This, this is exactly how - in my opinion - it should be handled. The people who feel responsibility or sympathy for their situation can band together and help defray the costs they have - their unexpected inability to proceed with their lives, through no fault of their own. And that is what happened.
When I die, however nobly or ignobly, I don't expect the world around me to take care of my expenses. I'm not a hero. I'm not fighting to make the world safer by stopping terrorism on the front lines; I'm fighting to make capital area NY health insurance a little bit better, one line of code and one database row at a time. No survivor of mine is going to receive a death benefit beyond what I'm paying for paycheck-to-paycheck. I have life insurance, to cover my child support, to cover my funeral. It's not as much as I'd like - poor general health and poor financials make it difficult, or at least expensive - but it should be enough. And it just irks me that someone else assumes other people should take care of it for them... And then crucifies the company that is in the right, by their contract, when that company doesn't. And for such a paltry amount, too. To me, it's not right for them to complain; it's a mockery of the soldier, that his death should be used as a bludgeon for something like this.
Anyway. I hope I didn't offend anyone with this. Just my $0.02.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Canada's Fake Lake
They're getting a lot of flak over this one:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9lvVdaEPd6bT5EY3WAN5YC-vrNgD9G7LVC80
I think my favorite quote about this is from a Canadian comedian Martha Oneal, who said "What are they making it with, diamonds and homeless peoples' tears? $2 million can buy a lot of Boy Scouts to walk them across the road to the real lake.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i9lvVdaEPd6bT5EY3WAN5YC-vrNgD9G7LVC80
I think my favorite quote about this is from a Canadian comedian Martha Oneal, who said "What are they making it with, diamonds and homeless peoples' tears? $2 million can buy a lot of Boy Scouts to walk them across the road to the real lake.
Monday, June 7, 2010
The Post Hunt, it is done!
So okay, the Post Hunt was awesome. I enjoyed myself *so* much. The rain was annoying, and it was humid and I must have lost gallons of water via sweat... But I was grinning the whole day, dammit. :)
Check out the Washington Post's coverage here.
Oh, and when you go there... Click "Full Coverage"; click "The Credentials"; and when you get to 0:34 on the clock, pause it. The big scary one on the left is ME! The red shirt on the right is my sister; the dark hair with the dark blue Nationals shirt is my brother-in-law; the hat and the light-colored shirt/skirt on the right is Janet; the light shirt with the grey hair behind me, the blue shirt with the red hat next to Matt, and the green shirt with the visor between those two are Colin, David, and Kevin, Sarah and Matt's friends.
I can't recommend it enough. It was *so* much fun. :) Y'all should come do it next year!
Friday, June 4, 2010
Post hunt ho!
So I'm down in DC now, visiting my sister and brother-in-law for the Washington Post 3rd Annual Scavenger Hunt. It's the DC version of the Tropic Hunt, which Dave Barry started with a couple of his co-workers back in... 1984, I think? Now that both the others work at the Washington Post, they run it separately in both places. It's... Pretty zany. As in, I think they're all crazy people.
Check it out - go to http://www.vwtech.com/tropichunt/ to look at the archives for both the Tropic and Post hunts. Funny stuff.
Tomorrow, it's looking like touristy crap. In the morning, it's looking like the Native American Museum out on the mall - where they also happen to be having a guitar festival - http://www.dciberoamericanguitarfestival.org/2010/. In the afternoon, it's looking like the Portrait Gallery before dinner... And then dinner at http://www.zaytinya.com/. So Sunday's looking like the most exciting, but Saturday isn't slacking behind very far.
I'm very, very excited.
Check it out - go to http://www.vwtech.com/tropichunt/ to look at the archives for both the Tropic and Post hunts. Funny stuff.
Tomorrow, it's looking like touristy crap. In the morning, it's looking like the Native American Museum out on the mall - where they also happen to be having a guitar festival - http://www.dciberoamericanguitarfestival.org/2010/. In the afternoon, it's looking like the Portrait Gallery before dinner... And then dinner at http://www.zaytinya.com/. So Sunday's looking like the most exciting, but Saturday isn't slacking behind very far.
I'm very, very excited.
Holy crap, what happened?!?!?
What happened is that I took all my previous blog entries, and pushed them over to my older, "closed", private blog - and then opened this one up to be public. Why? Because I'm experimenting. Because I can? Because... Oh, hell, I just did.
If you had access to this and don't have access to http://madminer.blogspot.com/, please let me know. I'll fix it. Or, for that matter, if you want access to my closed blog anddidn't have access to this one, let me know anyway. Odds are I'll give you access.
If you had access to this and don't have access to http://madminer.blogspot.com/, please let me know. I'll fix it. Or, for that matter, if you want access to my closed blog anddidn't have access to this one, let me know anyway. Odds are I'll give you access.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)