Although the ratings are poor, DVD sales are high for Peep Show, a Channel 4 sitcom featuring Robert Webb and David Mitchell. How do I feel about the show? I have watched all thirty shows three times apiece. In my opinion, this is the best comedy show on television anywhere in the English-speaking world right now. No one can make me laugh like the Webb and Mitchell team.
The most novel innovation in Peep Show relates to how the camera is employed. Instead of watching all the characters on the set, we see the world through one of the character's eyes, literally, because the camera is mounted upon that character's forehead. The second innovation relates to the frequent narration by one of the two main characters, revealing their base hidden motivations and interpretations.
The writers do not shy away from getting intellectual on your ass. Historical, philosophical and academic references are on the menu. Expect witty dialog packed with maximum drama and strange asides that will leave you thinking. While there are countless references to homosexuality, heterosexuality, recreational drug use, casual sex, and monogamy, none of it is offensive, mean-spirited or didactic. Instead everything progresses along a natural arc with a focus upon the feelings and motivations of the characters. The stars and the supporting cast all meet the challenge presented by the brainy writing. My favorite characters? I like them all very much, even the most minor characters who appear in the show only once or twice. However, after Webb and Mitchell, I really like Olivia Colman, who also stars in the gay-friendly sitcom "Beautiful People," which I also recommend. But she shines brighter in Peep Show, where she represents a more sympathetic and believable character.
David Mitchell and Robert Webb also produce a show called "That Mitchell and Webb Look," which is just as funny as Peep Show, but in a completely different format, being a series of short, unrelated sketches. I recommend both of these shows and hope that these actors enjoy a long career in show biz, because I intend to follow their productions from now on. The five seasons of Peep Show already completed are destined to be classics, because they have broken exciting new ground in the art of television comedy.
I never laughed so hard. Thank you to England for producing superb comedy!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Why I am a Liberal
Here's why I'm a liberal. I notice that the biggest annoyances in my life tend to come not from the government, but from the private sector, which tends to be opportunistic, selfish, deceptive, at times criminal, and exploitative both of the environment and of their employees. Liberals are big on government because it's the only power that can reign in the private sector.
People who complain about government should bear in mind that whenever government is bad, it can be changed through public pressure or the electoral process. When a private business is bad, it can't be changed. The public has no control over a private business. This is why I am against privatization of any more public assets, because that's a step in the wrong direction, toward the very things it is supposed to remedy: corruption, abuse and inefficiency.
The fact that we have had so many conservative politicians in power for so long is the reason the U.S. and world economy tanked. They have wasted over a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan with pointless and counter-productive wars. Meanwhile, Republicans chafe at the thought of applying the same amount within the United States, and call Obama's stimulus package "uncontrolled and unnecessary spending." To me, unnecessary spending is when you bomb villages in Pakistan, thereby inflaming the entire Pakistani population against the United States. Why should we kill civilians and make new enemies, and not build roads here in the United States? It would seem to me that U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in the U.S. The only thing the war on terrorism has accomplished is creating new terrorists and wasting a trillion dollars.
With a trillion dollars, there are many good things that could have been done. The main area I'm thinking about involves scientific research that might cure diseases like cancer and AIDS. I have friends and family that suffer from these diseases. I would imagine most people do. What's not to like about curing these illnesses? Would that not be a better use of a trillion dollars than creating new enemies? Or what about developing an alternative energy source, so that we don't feel tempted to invade nations like Iraq? With a trillion dollars, we could have taken solar power to an entirely new level, just to name one example. We could have built a modern nuclear reactor beside every major city in the nation, which would reduce pollution by a massive amount. Right now, with the car companies asking for a government bailout, we should strong-arm them into producing only fuel efficient cars like hybrids and nothing else. If the automakers want government assistance, they should be willing to be part of the solution on the energy crisis as well.
Just think of all this money that has been wasted on the desert sands of Iraq. If you really hate the United States and want to hurt it the maximum amount, then and only then does invading Iraq makes sense. I was personally disgusted, appalled and disillusioned that my tax money was misused in this way. It's truly an appalling, massive waste of the nation's wealth that has tarnished our image abroad forever. In my opinion, George W. Bush was the worst President in our nation's history just for the horrible miscalculation he made over that single issue, Iraq. I am certain that in retrospect he probably wishes he had not done it, but the rush to war by his Administration was unforgivable. Bush ignored all the information that would have argued against invasion. Why is that? I believe Bush was a narrow-minded person, convinced that he was always right about everything; the type of person to think of all his detractors as traitors and scoundrels. In reality, who was the traitor and scoundrel other than George W. Bush himself, along with his henchmen in the Administration, starting with Dick Cheney? If they had really loved America in the genuine way that liberals do, they would not have squandered the nation's treasure on a pointless conflict.
Why does does the image of the United States matter? Who cares what other people around the world think of us? These are the questions that seemed to flicker through President Bush's mind. He did not seem to be concerned about the feelings of other countries, such as Arab countries, countries in Western Europe or in Asia. Many of our allies were aghast at the invasion of Iraq, and friction developed with France and Germany. Instead of heeding these signals, the Bush Administration ignored them, and the right wing in the U.S. looked upon France as a treacherous fair-weather friend.
How does a bad image abroad hurt the United States economy? People are making decisions every single day on what products to purchase for themselves, their families, and their businesses. If they have a choice between an American product and a product manufactured elsewhere, it might matter what they think about America. If we are perceived as a nation of arrogant war-mongers that thumb our nose at the U.N., then people will be less likely to buy American. If we are perceived as not following the Geneva Convention and torturing prisoners, do you think people in other countries will buy American? I see a shopper in a department store putting an item back down on the shelf, because the label says "MADE IN USA," and she thinks: my money would be used toward prisoner abuse and bombs raining down on helpless civilians, women and children. Multiply that one shopper by several billion, and it is not difficult to see that this ugly war hit our economy hard. I think the Iraq war and fallout resulting from it was the direct cause of the economic meltdown in the U.S.
The many hidden costs of war are never obvious to the people who start wars. President Clinton may not have been perfect in the area of sexual monogamy, but while in office, he knew better than to get the country deeply ensnared in an overseas conflict. I remember the Clinton years with fondness. The economy was booming, people were happy. Don't you wish we could travel back in time to the year 2000? Everyone would know not to vote for George W. Bush then, because to vote for Bush would be like voting to cut your retirement funds in half.
At no time between 2000 to the present day did I vote for any Republicans. I can recall with considerable pride that not only did I vote for Al Gore, but I contributed $100 to his election campaign. In 2004, I voted for Kerry. Neither of these candidates were perfect from my point of view, but they were both much better than Bush. I can imagine Gore being very interested in scientific research and development of industry here in the United States. Gore is the type of man that would immerse himself in the details and sniff out the right decision on important issues. Now the media mocked him, and continues to poke fun at him this day, for being serious, sober, and for caring enough to speak out about real issues, like global warming, instead of phony issues, like we often see on Fox News, which exists to promote war and hate on a 24-hour basis. I do not think Gore would have gotten us into Iraq. Kerry, too, had more sense than Bush. But in the case of Bush, it's a case of "like father, like son," because his father also tanked the economy and started a war with Iraq. George W. Bush was never a terribly original thinker. He simply did what his old man did before, with disastrous consequences.
The only possible gain from war is derived from looting a vanquished nation, but we cannot do that with impunity in the modern era. We would be viewed in the same light as the Nazis, although some people already view us in that light, thanks to the policies of George W. Bush. It may just be possible to undo some of the harm Bush has done in his eight years in office. I think Obama needs eight years, and the next Democrat after him will need eight years, and the Democrat after that, eight years as well, in order to get the U.S. economy back to where it was under President Clinton, before the disaster of the conservative right wing descended upon this nation. Indeed, unless the Republican party reverses much of its ideological positions, there should never again be a Republican elected to high office ever, based upon the abysmal performances of the Republicans during the last eight years.
Republicans wrecked the economy, started a wasteful pointless war, tarnished our image abroad, made the world a more dangerous place, did nothing about any real problems like pollution or energy dependence, and colluded with private interests to defraud investors and the public of billions--if not trillions--of dollars. The only thing the Republicans can be given credit for is not initiating an exchange of nuclear weapons, but that is faint praise indeed. Nuclear war is much more likely now than it was before the Republicans took over both the Congress and the White House.
Today, I support Obama's expensive stimulus package. At least this President is spending the money here at home, rather than on bombs that kill people overseas. In truth, I have not studied all of the details of the stimulus package. But for the time being, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If some money is indeed wasted, at least this time around it will be wasted here at home, on domestic rather than warlike actions. Rebuilding the nation's roads and working towards energy independence seems to me like adequate stewardship of taxpayer money.
The main problem in the U.S. today is that far too much government spending goes toward the defense industry. This has been an ongoing problem ever since WW2, although the situation has become aggravated over time. America needs to learn to produce products that the world actually wants to buy. We need a manufacturing sector that makes desirable products. We do not need more guns and bombs to kill people. If the current trend of mindless militarism continues, economic disaster looms. The way to remain strong is to have a strong economy and infrastructure, including education, energy, and scientific research. Our nation's largest socialist structure, the military, should be kept lean and modified over time to respond to new threats as they emerge.
These are the main reasons I consider myself a liberal. If you look at the record of liberal and conservative Congressmen, I think the liberals have more to be proud about. This is why Obama is sitting in the White House today, and why many Republican incumbents were voted out of office in the last election cycle.
The Republican party requires more than just a new face with a different gender or skin color. The American people are not all that stupid as the GOP might have supposed by this obsession with brand image, represented by the elevation of Sarah Palin, an airhead who had the sole advantage of being an attractive female. What the GOP needs is a complete transformation of their ideology, moving away from the far right wing where they are at now.
If Republicans are truly about less government spending, then they could easily show it by opposing military spending, which is the most obscene form of spending in a time of peace. This new consistent approach would be a good start for the GOP. In the past, Republicans used to oppose overseas intervention, as during the Woodrow Wilson years. Why not return to that policy? The largest area of spending by far is on foreign adventures and the maintenance of an over-sized and usually idle military. I would like to see troops performing public-work projects in the United States, much as the military of many other countries do.
Another thing the Republicans could do would be to open their party up to gays by abandoning all of their narrow-minded positions against gays. Gays only have one sane choice as far as political parties go. The Republicans have come a long way toward eliminating racism from their ranks, but they need to eliminate homophobia as well. Opposing equal rights for gays, such as the right to visit your partner when he is in the hospital, is just plain mean-spirited of Republicans. Gay spouses deserve medical insurance benefits, just as straight ones do. Things like this, you can expect a liberal to understand right away, whereas a conservative will hem and haw, while real people are suffering.
People who complain about government should bear in mind that whenever government is bad, it can be changed through public pressure or the electoral process. When a private business is bad, it can't be changed. The public has no control over a private business. This is why I am against privatization of any more public assets, because that's a step in the wrong direction, toward the very things it is supposed to remedy: corruption, abuse and inefficiency.
The fact that we have had so many conservative politicians in power for so long is the reason the U.S. and world economy tanked. They have wasted over a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan with pointless and counter-productive wars. Meanwhile, Republicans chafe at the thought of applying the same amount within the United States, and call Obama's stimulus package "uncontrolled and unnecessary spending." To me, unnecessary spending is when you bomb villages in Pakistan, thereby inflaming the entire Pakistani population against the United States. Why should we kill civilians and make new enemies, and not build roads here in the United States? It would seem to me that U.S. taxpayer money should be spent in the U.S. The only thing the war on terrorism has accomplished is creating new terrorists and wasting a trillion dollars.
With a trillion dollars, there are many good things that could have been done. The main area I'm thinking about involves scientific research that might cure diseases like cancer and AIDS. I have friends and family that suffer from these diseases. I would imagine most people do. What's not to like about curing these illnesses? Would that not be a better use of a trillion dollars than creating new enemies? Or what about developing an alternative energy source, so that we don't feel tempted to invade nations like Iraq? With a trillion dollars, we could have taken solar power to an entirely new level, just to name one example. We could have built a modern nuclear reactor beside every major city in the nation, which would reduce pollution by a massive amount. Right now, with the car companies asking for a government bailout, we should strong-arm them into producing only fuel efficient cars like hybrids and nothing else. If the automakers want government assistance, they should be willing to be part of the solution on the energy crisis as well.
Just think of all this money that has been wasted on the desert sands of Iraq. If you really hate the United States and want to hurt it the maximum amount, then and only then does invading Iraq makes sense. I was personally disgusted, appalled and disillusioned that my tax money was misused in this way. It's truly an appalling, massive waste of the nation's wealth that has tarnished our image abroad forever. In my opinion, George W. Bush was the worst President in our nation's history just for the horrible miscalculation he made over that single issue, Iraq. I am certain that in retrospect he probably wishes he had not done it, but the rush to war by his Administration was unforgivable. Bush ignored all the information that would have argued against invasion. Why is that? I believe Bush was a narrow-minded person, convinced that he was always right about everything; the type of person to think of all his detractors as traitors and scoundrels. In reality, who was the traitor and scoundrel other than George W. Bush himself, along with his henchmen in the Administration, starting with Dick Cheney? If they had really loved America in the genuine way that liberals do, they would not have squandered the nation's treasure on a pointless conflict.
Why does does the image of the United States matter? Who cares what other people around the world think of us? These are the questions that seemed to flicker through President Bush's mind. He did not seem to be concerned about the feelings of other countries, such as Arab countries, countries in Western Europe or in Asia. Many of our allies were aghast at the invasion of Iraq, and friction developed with France and Germany. Instead of heeding these signals, the Bush Administration ignored them, and the right wing in the U.S. looked upon France as a treacherous fair-weather friend.
How does a bad image abroad hurt the United States economy? People are making decisions every single day on what products to purchase for themselves, their families, and their businesses. If they have a choice between an American product and a product manufactured elsewhere, it might matter what they think about America. If we are perceived as a nation of arrogant war-mongers that thumb our nose at the U.N., then people will be less likely to buy American. If we are perceived as not following the Geneva Convention and torturing prisoners, do you think people in other countries will buy American? I see a shopper in a department store putting an item back down on the shelf, because the label says "MADE IN USA," and she thinks: my money would be used toward prisoner abuse and bombs raining down on helpless civilians, women and children. Multiply that one shopper by several billion, and it is not difficult to see that this ugly war hit our economy hard. I think the Iraq war and fallout resulting from it was the direct cause of the economic meltdown in the U.S.
The many hidden costs of war are never obvious to the people who start wars. President Clinton may not have been perfect in the area of sexual monogamy, but while in office, he knew better than to get the country deeply ensnared in an overseas conflict. I remember the Clinton years with fondness. The economy was booming, people were happy. Don't you wish we could travel back in time to the year 2000? Everyone would know not to vote for George W. Bush then, because to vote for Bush would be like voting to cut your retirement funds in half.
At no time between 2000 to the present day did I vote for any Republicans. I can recall with considerable pride that not only did I vote for Al Gore, but I contributed $100 to his election campaign. In 2004, I voted for Kerry. Neither of these candidates were perfect from my point of view, but they were both much better than Bush. I can imagine Gore being very interested in scientific research and development of industry here in the United States. Gore is the type of man that would immerse himself in the details and sniff out the right decision on important issues. Now the media mocked him, and continues to poke fun at him this day, for being serious, sober, and for caring enough to speak out about real issues, like global warming, instead of phony issues, like we often see on Fox News, which exists to promote war and hate on a 24-hour basis. I do not think Gore would have gotten us into Iraq. Kerry, too, had more sense than Bush. But in the case of Bush, it's a case of "like father, like son," because his father also tanked the economy and started a war with Iraq. George W. Bush was never a terribly original thinker. He simply did what his old man did before, with disastrous consequences.
The only possible gain from war is derived from looting a vanquished nation, but we cannot do that with impunity in the modern era. We would be viewed in the same light as the Nazis, although some people already view us in that light, thanks to the policies of George W. Bush. It may just be possible to undo some of the harm Bush has done in his eight years in office. I think Obama needs eight years, and the next Democrat after him will need eight years, and the Democrat after that, eight years as well, in order to get the U.S. economy back to where it was under President Clinton, before the disaster of the conservative right wing descended upon this nation. Indeed, unless the Republican party reverses much of its ideological positions, there should never again be a Republican elected to high office ever, based upon the abysmal performances of the Republicans during the last eight years.
Republicans wrecked the economy, started a wasteful pointless war, tarnished our image abroad, made the world a more dangerous place, did nothing about any real problems like pollution or energy dependence, and colluded with private interests to defraud investors and the public of billions--if not trillions--of dollars. The only thing the Republicans can be given credit for is not initiating an exchange of nuclear weapons, but that is faint praise indeed. Nuclear war is much more likely now than it was before the Republicans took over both the Congress and the White House.
Today, I support Obama's expensive stimulus package. At least this President is spending the money here at home, rather than on bombs that kill people overseas. In truth, I have not studied all of the details of the stimulus package. But for the time being, I am willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If some money is indeed wasted, at least this time around it will be wasted here at home, on domestic rather than warlike actions. Rebuilding the nation's roads and working towards energy independence seems to me like adequate stewardship of taxpayer money.
The main problem in the U.S. today is that far too much government spending goes toward the defense industry. This has been an ongoing problem ever since WW2, although the situation has become aggravated over time. America needs to learn to produce products that the world actually wants to buy. We need a manufacturing sector that makes desirable products. We do not need more guns and bombs to kill people. If the current trend of mindless militarism continues, economic disaster looms. The way to remain strong is to have a strong economy and infrastructure, including education, energy, and scientific research. Our nation's largest socialist structure, the military, should be kept lean and modified over time to respond to new threats as they emerge.
These are the main reasons I consider myself a liberal. If you look at the record of liberal and conservative Congressmen, I think the liberals have more to be proud about. This is why Obama is sitting in the White House today, and why many Republican incumbents were voted out of office in the last election cycle.
The Republican party requires more than just a new face with a different gender or skin color. The American people are not all that stupid as the GOP might have supposed by this obsession with brand image, represented by the elevation of Sarah Palin, an airhead who had the sole advantage of being an attractive female. What the GOP needs is a complete transformation of their ideology, moving away from the far right wing where they are at now.
If Republicans are truly about less government spending, then they could easily show it by opposing military spending, which is the most obscene form of spending in a time of peace. This new consistent approach would be a good start for the GOP. In the past, Republicans used to oppose overseas intervention, as during the Woodrow Wilson years. Why not return to that policy? The largest area of spending by far is on foreign adventures and the maintenance of an over-sized and usually idle military. I would like to see troops performing public-work projects in the United States, much as the military of many other countries do.
Another thing the Republicans could do would be to open their party up to gays by abandoning all of their narrow-minded positions against gays. Gays only have one sane choice as far as political parties go. The Republicans have come a long way toward eliminating racism from their ranks, but they need to eliminate homophobia as well. Opposing equal rights for gays, such as the right to visit your partner when he is in the hospital, is just plain mean-spirited of Republicans. Gay spouses deserve medical insurance benefits, just as straight ones do. Things like this, you can expect a liberal to understand right away, whereas a conservative will hem and haw, while real people are suffering.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Races and Classes in Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl
New players to Dungeon Crawl are faced with an immediate decision as to which race and class they will play. All variations have their own special advantages, and some players develop a strong preference for a particular race/class combination. My position is that they are always right. Whatever works for them is best. The race/class they prefer is what best matches their particular style of play.
However, if you are curious and want to learn the specific aptitudes of each race, grounded in mathematics, then you should view the Tables of Attributes, which can be found by pressing ? for help, followed by %.
The Table of Attributes enlightened me about the deficiencies of the Mummy race. Early on, I preferred playing Mummies, because they alone among all the races need not eat. Also, they enjoy resistance to negative energy, mutation, cold, and poison. Only when one studies the Table of Attributes do their severe disadvantages become clear. Mummies learn all skills poorly, save for Fighting and Necromancy. In fact, in order to get anywhere with a Mummy, one has to remain at the lower levels for an extraordinary length of time, skulking about looking for magic items and easy monsters to slay in order to gradually build up power. Woe betide a Mummy that has not obtained an artificial means of resisting Fire! However, theoretically it seems possible to build an invulnerable character with a Mummy, if you are willing to invest enough time, because Mummies are immune to negative energy and mutation, and resistant to poison and cold. In addition, their immunity to hunger means they can cast spells with impunity, where other classes grow hungry from spell-casting. They need not carry abundant supplies of food in their inventory, but can devote all their inventory to weapons and magic. The best class for a Mummy is probably a Death Knight that dabbles in Necromancy but has strong fighting skills. Unfortunately, many of the powerful low-level spells of Necromancy, such as Regen and Vampiric Draining, cannot be used by Mummies. They are quite limited as spellcasters, but with patience throughout a long game, can master many low level spells.
An excellent choice for any player would be a Demonspawn Beserker, which may be the easiest combination to play. They are extremely powerful and in their beserk state, can blast through all but the most mighty monsters such as named Demons and Devils. The main drawback for the Beserker is being restricted from casting spells, but Demonspawns sometimes develop mutations that allow them to cast ranged attacks using poison, fire or negative energy. Also, the Beserker can rely upon Trog's munificence to employ certain useful magical powers. What I like about Demonspawn is how they develop random, but permanent, beneficial mutations, which are different in every game but always helpful. Especially for a Beserker, these are useful, because the Beserker cannot use magic and the mutations often grant magic-like abilities. The main drawback to the Demonspawn race is the increased need for food--they are a hungry lot, I have found. Also, Demonspawn are not particularly apt at any particular skill except Fighting and Necromancy, although much quicker at learning than Mummies. Demonspawn are excellent at Invocations, surpassing all other classes. It should be noted, however, that Beserkers do not exercise Invocations when they call upon Trog's abilities. Trog's gifts are given free of charge. Only the abilities of other gods, such as Sif Muna, tax the Invocation ability. This is a fine point I was unaware of for a long time, until I noticed that my Invocation skill never progressed.
Many players swear by the Mountain Dwarf race, and I would be remiss not to mention it, although I never play dwarves, possibly out of a prejudice developed from watching "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy of movies, in which dwarves were depicted in a comical and unattractive light. A glance at the Table of Attributes is enough to confirm that dwarves are excellent fighters, although rather less gifted spellcasters, with the possible exception of Fire Magic. Any dwarven Fire Elementalist would be hampered by the low aptitude at spellcasting and mediocre aptitude at Conjurations. For this reason, I strongly suggest that dwarves that wish to learn Fire Magic, instead begin their career as a Conjurer, because that will grant them several levels of Conjuration skill from the start. Most Fire spells rely in part upon the Conjuration skill.
However, dwarves excel at Evocations, more so than any other race save Gnomes, their equal. Therefore, a dwarf character need only stock up on wands and other devices in order to cast spells indirectly using a device. Another key advantage for dwarves is the abundance of racial items throughout the dungeon. Dwarves, like orcs and elves, gain a bonus for using items crafted by their own race.
My newest infatuation would be for the race of elves, in particular sludge elves, which are good spellcasters, yet better than any other elf species at the Fighting ability, which helps to increase hit points. Sludge elves excel at unarmed combat, which is advisable until your character discovers a particularly good weapon. If staves were good at all, then sludge elves would be the best race to use them with. But I don't like staves, because they don't seem to work well with shields. The best enchanted shields convey resistance to both heat and cold, and help to avoid attacks and minimize the damage inflicted by a successful attack, including dragon breath and electrical discharge. In order for a staff to be a competitive weapon, it must inflict high damage, and to date the best candidate would be the lajatang, which is worth considering. But lajatangs are seldom encountered in the lower levels of the dungeon, when skills are being acquired, and I would be loath to switch weapon classes in mid-career. For that reason, my sludge elves usually practice with an elven short or long blade, and switch to a quick blade whenever one is found. It should be noted that proficiency with long blades lends itself to short blades as well.
Among short blades, which is better for an elf: a quick blade or an elven short sword of speed? After long consideration, I think I will go with the elven short sword of speed, because it should be both faster than the quick blade, and enjoy a racial bonus (if the character is an elf). The biggest drawback is that a short sword of speed, being already enchanted, cannot be vorpalized. Vorpalization is effected by a Scroll of Vorpalize Weapon, which causes an unenchanted weapon to yield additional damage on a permanent basis.
What is the advantage of a small but fast melee weapon? Every time that your character attacks, there is an opportunity for an additional, unarmed combat attack to occur. This is random, but by having more attacks per turn you increase the chances of your unarmed combat coming into play. Also, if you're fast, you can attack, then retreat, and the monster may not have an opportunity to do more than simply follow. Also, with each attack there is a chance you may kill the monster, and a fast rate of attack reduces the possibility that the monster might get off one last killing stroke before it dies. Although some players scoff at the low damage rating of short blades, a heavily enchanted short blade can inflict a great deal of damage, not so much less than larger weapons.
A career in Ice Magic should be considered by every sludge elf. No other race is better at Ice Magic save the white draconian. I begin my sludge elf as a Conjurer, so that he has several levels in that department, because Conjurations are important for many spells in Ice Magic. The best spells are Bolt of Ice and Ice Bolt, whose titles are similar and therefore confusing. To the best of my knowledge, Ice Bolt is a lower level spell that can only strike one monster, whereas Bolt of Ice can strike multiple monsters in a row, and seems more powerful. The main drawback to Ice Magic is that the undead, particularly mummies, have a low level of resistance to it. However, there are not many living creatures in the dungeon that can resist cold, and the many fire-breathing dragons, demons and efreeti suffer particularly from it. However, the defensive spells, such as Condensation Shield and Icozubu's Armour, cannot be used if the character is already heavily armored and wearing a shield. I tend to learn ice magic to a certain level and then begin to practice other schools of magic, such as transmutation, at which sludge elves excel, and earth magic. Note that the Ice and Earth schools of magic have an affinity for one another. Learning one assists in learning the other. This is also true of Fire and Air. Poison and Necromancy stand alone without relation to other schools.
Another class I find worthy of mention is the minotaur, which should be considered by anyone who despises spellcasting. Minotaurs make excellent Beserkers. They are very strong and robust and learn all forms of combat quickly. Unarmed combat is not a bad strategy for the minotaur due to its large set of horns. Go unarmed until you find the perfect weapon. What is the perfect weapon? You will know it when you find it. Maybe it will convey protection, or resistance to harm, or maybe it will freeze or drain your opponents. Minotaurs should always wear a shield and heavy armor, because they excel at those skills, as well as dodging. The minotaur may indeed be the easiest race to play.
Other races I regard as experimental. Although they may be quite powerful in their own way, I have not found cause to try them at length other than once or twice. The human race I regard as boring. I prefer a race that has specialties. Deep elves are certainly worth considering if spellcasting is to be the cornerstone of your strategy, but they are weak, though not as weak as Spriggans. Spriggans, however, are fast and dexterous and learn dodging at a rapid rate. I think that most players will find that warriors and hybrid classes of warrior/spellcasters will be the easiest choices, and for these, elves, dwarves, minotaurs, and demonspawn represent some of the best races.
However, if you are curious and want to learn the specific aptitudes of each race, grounded in mathematics, then you should view the Tables of Attributes, which can be found by pressing ? for help, followed by %.
The Table of Attributes enlightened me about the deficiencies of the Mummy race. Early on, I preferred playing Mummies, because they alone among all the races need not eat. Also, they enjoy resistance to negative energy, mutation, cold, and poison. Only when one studies the Table of Attributes do their severe disadvantages become clear. Mummies learn all skills poorly, save for Fighting and Necromancy. In fact, in order to get anywhere with a Mummy, one has to remain at the lower levels for an extraordinary length of time, skulking about looking for magic items and easy monsters to slay in order to gradually build up power. Woe betide a Mummy that has not obtained an artificial means of resisting Fire! However, theoretically it seems possible to build an invulnerable character with a Mummy, if you are willing to invest enough time, because Mummies are immune to negative energy and mutation, and resistant to poison and cold. In addition, their immunity to hunger means they can cast spells with impunity, where other classes grow hungry from spell-casting. They need not carry abundant supplies of food in their inventory, but can devote all their inventory to weapons and magic. The best class for a Mummy is probably a Death Knight that dabbles in Necromancy but has strong fighting skills. Unfortunately, many of the powerful low-level spells of Necromancy, such as Regen and Vampiric Draining, cannot be used by Mummies. They are quite limited as spellcasters, but with patience throughout a long game, can master many low level spells.
An excellent choice for any player would be a Demonspawn Beserker, which may be the easiest combination to play. They are extremely powerful and in their beserk state, can blast through all but the most mighty monsters such as named Demons and Devils. The main drawback for the Beserker is being restricted from casting spells, but Demonspawns sometimes develop mutations that allow them to cast ranged attacks using poison, fire or negative energy. Also, the Beserker can rely upon Trog's munificence to employ certain useful magical powers. What I like about Demonspawn is how they develop random, but permanent, beneficial mutations, which are different in every game but always helpful. Especially for a Beserker, these are useful, because the Beserker cannot use magic and the mutations often grant magic-like abilities. The main drawback to the Demonspawn race is the increased need for food--they are a hungry lot, I have found. Also, Demonspawn are not particularly apt at any particular skill except Fighting and Necromancy, although much quicker at learning than Mummies. Demonspawn are excellent at Invocations, surpassing all other classes. It should be noted, however, that Beserkers do not exercise Invocations when they call upon Trog's abilities. Trog's gifts are given free of charge. Only the abilities of other gods, such as Sif Muna, tax the Invocation ability. This is a fine point I was unaware of for a long time, until I noticed that my Invocation skill never progressed.
Many players swear by the Mountain Dwarf race, and I would be remiss not to mention it, although I never play dwarves, possibly out of a prejudice developed from watching "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy of movies, in which dwarves were depicted in a comical and unattractive light. A glance at the Table of Attributes is enough to confirm that dwarves are excellent fighters, although rather less gifted spellcasters, with the possible exception of Fire Magic. Any dwarven Fire Elementalist would be hampered by the low aptitude at spellcasting and mediocre aptitude at Conjurations. For this reason, I strongly suggest that dwarves that wish to learn Fire Magic, instead begin their career as a Conjurer, because that will grant them several levels of Conjuration skill from the start. Most Fire spells rely in part upon the Conjuration skill.
However, dwarves excel at Evocations, more so than any other race save Gnomes, their equal. Therefore, a dwarf character need only stock up on wands and other devices in order to cast spells indirectly using a device. Another key advantage for dwarves is the abundance of racial items throughout the dungeon. Dwarves, like orcs and elves, gain a bonus for using items crafted by their own race.
My newest infatuation would be for the race of elves, in particular sludge elves, which are good spellcasters, yet better than any other elf species at the Fighting ability, which helps to increase hit points. Sludge elves excel at unarmed combat, which is advisable until your character discovers a particularly good weapon. If staves were good at all, then sludge elves would be the best race to use them with. But I don't like staves, because they don't seem to work well with shields. The best enchanted shields convey resistance to both heat and cold, and help to avoid attacks and minimize the damage inflicted by a successful attack, including dragon breath and electrical discharge. In order for a staff to be a competitive weapon, it must inflict high damage, and to date the best candidate would be the lajatang, which is worth considering. But lajatangs are seldom encountered in the lower levels of the dungeon, when skills are being acquired, and I would be loath to switch weapon classes in mid-career. For that reason, my sludge elves usually practice with an elven short or long blade, and switch to a quick blade whenever one is found. It should be noted that proficiency with long blades lends itself to short blades as well.
Among short blades, which is better for an elf: a quick blade or an elven short sword of speed? After long consideration, I think I will go with the elven short sword of speed, because it should be both faster than the quick blade, and enjoy a racial bonus (if the character is an elf). The biggest drawback is that a short sword of speed, being already enchanted, cannot be vorpalized. Vorpalization is effected by a Scroll of Vorpalize Weapon, which causes an unenchanted weapon to yield additional damage on a permanent basis.
What is the advantage of a small but fast melee weapon? Every time that your character attacks, there is an opportunity for an additional, unarmed combat attack to occur. This is random, but by having more attacks per turn you increase the chances of your unarmed combat coming into play. Also, if you're fast, you can attack, then retreat, and the monster may not have an opportunity to do more than simply follow. Also, with each attack there is a chance you may kill the monster, and a fast rate of attack reduces the possibility that the monster might get off one last killing stroke before it dies. Although some players scoff at the low damage rating of short blades, a heavily enchanted short blade can inflict a great deal of damage, not so much less than larger weapons.
A career in Ice Magic should be considered by every sludge elf. No other race is better at Ice Magic save the white draconian. I begin my sludge elf as a Conjurer, so that he has several levels in that department, because Conjurations are important for many spells in Ice Magic. The best spells are Bolt of Ice and Ice Bolt, whose titles are similar and therefore confusing. To the best of my knowledge, Ice Bolt is a lower level spell that can only strike one monster, whereas Bolt of Ice can strike multiple monsters in a row, and seems more powerful. The main drawback to Ice Magic is that the undead, particularly mummies, have a low level of resistance to it. However, there are not many living creatures in the dungeon that can resist cold, and the many fire-breathing dragons, demons and efreeti suffer particularly from it. However, the defensive spells, such as Condensation Shield and Icozubu's Armour, cannot be used if the character is already heavily armored and wearing a shield. I tend to learn ice magic to a certain level and then begin to practice other schools of magic, such as transmutation, at which sludge elves excel, and earth magic. Note that the Ice and Earth schools of magic have an affinity for one another. Learning one assists in learning the other. This is also true of Fire and Air. Poison and Necromancy stand alone without relation to other schools.
Another class I find worthy of mention is the minotaur, which should be considered by anyone who despises spellcasting. Minotaurs make excellent Beserkers. They are very strong and robust and learn all forms of combat quickly. Unarmed combat is not a bad strategy for the minotaur due to its large set of horns. Go unarmed until you find the perfect weapon. What is the perfect weapon? You will know it when you find it. Maybe it will convey protection, or resistance to harm, or maybe it will freeze or drain your opponents. Minotaurs should always wear a shield and heavy armor, because they excel at those skills, as well as dodging. The minotaur may indeed be the easiest race to play.
Other races I regard as experimental. Although they may be quite powerful in their own way, I have not found cause to try them at length other than once or twice. The human race I regard as boring. I prefer a race that has specialties. Deep elves are certainly worth considering if spellcasting is to be the cornerstone of your strategy, but they are weak, though not as weak as Spriggans. Spriggans, however, are fast and dexterous and learn dodging at a rapid rate. I think that most players will find that warriors and hybrid classes of warrior/spellcasters will be the easiest choices, and for these, elves, dwarves, minotaurs, and demonspawn represent some of the best races.
Stone Soup's Dungeon Crawl
Before I even begin a discussion of Dungeon Crawl, I realize most people have no idea what I am talking about, because it is the sort of game one does not find on the shelf at Wal-Mart. That doesn't mean it's not fun and addictive to the point where I can play it all night long, night after night without getting bored. However, it's free, which to some people is a drawback. "Free? Must not be very good, then," is the usual line of thinking. Of course, Mozilla Firefox is free, too, and that is the best web browser around for my money. I am not sure why developers work on free projects, but I'm glad they do. Probably, part of the motivation is learning how to program and getting valuable experience under their belts, which was also my motivation back in the Stone Age when I was first learning about programming. I churned out tons of utilities, games, simulations, and odd, weird programs, some of which other people actually found useful, but none of which would be recognized or remembered today, I think.
First of all, Dungeon Crawl is a roguelike game, meaning it has the same features as the original Rogue which was highly popular back in the 1980s and early 1990s among IBM-PC users and particularly UNIX users on college campuses. Rogue was a game without graphics other than symbolic graphics using text characters, monsters being represented by letters of the alphabet. Lame, you say? Not really; our imagination filled in the gaps, much like what happens when one reads a book. Until recently, Dungeon Crawl was text-only, but now there is a version that employs graphical tiles, which represents a vast improvement in both appearance and functionality. I highly recommend that all new players to the game download the "Tiles" version, unless they are impaired in vision or have some other special requirement.
Linley Henzell created Dungeon Crawl back in 1995, but then stopped development at some point, at which time the Stone Soup team of volunteers commenced development of their own branch of Dungeon Crawl, which continues to the present day. In my opinion, Dungeon Crawl is the best and most popular roguelike available. You can either play in graphic mode (which is known as Tiles) or non-graphic mode depending upon which package you download from the Dungeon Crawl headquarters.
I began playing Crawl back in version 2.x, which was before the advent of Stone Soup, but I kept crawling through the Stone Soup years, which have been very good ones, I must say. I am impressed with the improvements the Stone Soup team has made and even more impressed with the capability, on Sourceforge.net, for users like me to report bugs, suggest improvements, and generally contribute our two cents. The programmers do actually listen to you and consider what you have to say, though there is no guarantee they will accept all or even any of your ideas, which is at it should be. Suffice to say they know what they are doing, all being veteran players themselves.
Here is a screen capture from a game I am playing of the new Tiles version of Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl:
Or click here to view an enlarged version.
You may notice a reference to Sif Muna in the screen capture above. Sif Muna is a god my character worships in return for various abilities. Religion is very materialistic in Crawl. You pick a god based upon what that god can do for you. I happen to prefer a god that does not ask anything of my character or his behavior, but only gives benefits, and Sif Muna fits the bill, at least for a spellcaster. For a pure warrior, Sif Muna has nothing to offer.
In this blog, besides touting the many joys of Stone Soup Dungeon Crawling (and what a mouthful that is--"crawling" is what I prefer to say), I aim to give many tips on game play. First of all, most people with a modern PC system made in the last fifteen years should use the Tiles version, because it looks better. It is true however that people with special needs or a tiny monitor may prefer the alphabetic version. There are no sounds in Dungeon Crawl, so you do not need to leave your speakers turned on. In fact, you can play an .mp3 list in the background, if that does not impact your concentration.
If you are the type that prefers the latest and greatest version, and like to live on the edge and take chances, like me, then try out the alpha version of Crawl here. I am willing to risk the game crashing and losing my character stats in return for the very latest edition of code with the maximum amount of known bugs fixed (although new bugs may have been introduced, ho-ho). I check back at the trunk page regularly to see whether new editions are ready for trial.
There are many debates and discussions about this game to be found on rec.games.roguelike.misc, a Usenet group (see my earlier blog post on the Usenet). This game should probably have its own Usenet newsgroup, because most of the discussion on ".misc" actually concerns none other than Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl.
In my next blog entries, I plan to discuss different aspects of the game which I have come to appreciate through many years of playing.
First of all, Dungeon Crawl is a roguelike game, meaning it has the same features as the original Rogue which was highly popular back in the 1980s and early 1990s among IBM-PC users and particularly UNIX users on college campuses. Rogue was a game without graphics other than symbolic graphics using text characters, monsters being represented by letters of the alphabet. Lame, you say? Not really; our imagination filled in the gaps, much like what happens when one reads a book. Until recently, Dungeon Crawl was text-only, but now there is a version that employs graphical tiles, which represents a vast improvement in both appearance and functionality. I highly recommend that all new players to the game download the "Tiles" version, unless they are impaired in vision or have some other special requirement.
Linley Henzell created Dungeon Crawl back in 1995, but then stopped development at some point, at which time the Stone Soup team of volunteers commenced development of their own branch of Dungeon Crawl, which continues to the present day. In my opinion, Dungeon Crawl is the best and most popular roguelike available. You can either play in graphic mode (which is known as Tiles) or non-graphic mode depending upon which package you download from the Dungeon Crawl headquarters.
I began playing Crawl back in version 2.x, which was before the advent of Stone Soup, but I kept crawling through the Stone Soup years, which have been very good ones, I must say. I am impressed with the improvements the Stone Soup team has made and even more impressed with the capability, on Sourceforge.net, for users like me to report bugs, suggest improvements, and generally contribute our two cents. The programmers do actually listen to you and consider what you have to say, though there is no guarantee they will accept all or even any of your ideas, which is at it should be. Suffice to say they know what they are doing, all being veteran players themselves.
Here is a screen capture from a game I am playing of the new Tiles version of Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl:
Or click here to view an enlarged version.
You may notice a reference to Sif Muna in the screen capture above. Sif Muna is a god my character worships in return for various abilities. Religion is very materialistic in Crawl. You pick a god based upon what that god can do for you. I happen to prefer a god that does not ask anything of my character or his behavior, but only gives benefits, and Sif Muna fits the bill, at least for a spellcaster. For a pure warrior, Sif Muna has nothing to offer.
In this blog, besides touting the many joys of Stone Soup Dungeon Crawling (and what a mouthful that is--"crawling" is what I prefer to say), I aim to give many tips on game play. First of all, most people with a modern PC system made in the last fifteen years should use the Tiles version, because it looks better. It is true however that people with special needs or a tiny monitor may prefer the alphabetic version. There are no sounds in Dungeon Crawl, so you do not need to leave your speakers turned on. In fact, you can play an .mp3 list in the background, if that does not impact your concentration.
If you are the type that prefers the latest and greatest version, and like to live on the edge and take chances, like me, then try out the alpha version of Crawl here. I am willing to risk the game crashing and losing my character stats in return for the very latest edition of code with the maximum amount of known bugs fixed (although new bugs may have been introduced, ho-ho). I check back at the trunk page regularly to see whether new editions are ready for trial.
There are many debates and discussions about this game to be found on rec.games.roguelike.misc, a Usenet group (see my earlier blog post on the Usenet). This game should probably have its own Usenet newsgroup, because most of the discussion on ".misc" actually concerns none other than Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl.
In my next blog entries, I plan to discuss different aspects of the game which I have come to appreciate through many years of playing.
Design your own Home Page
Recently, my ISP sent me an email boasting about NEW AND EXCITING DEVELOPMENTS that will make my internet FASTER AND BETTER. My curiosity piqued, I read further, only to discover they were redesigning the home page. Click here to view their actual email. A friend of mine complained that this new ISP home page was ugly. I wouldn't know, because never in this lifetime do I intend to use anybody else's home page. Instead, I hand-craft my own home page in pure html.
For the record, it is unwise to let any ISP pick your home page or to use their email account. You may change ISP's at some point and your email account with them would then become inactive. All that I desire from my ISP is internet access, period! Usenet access would also be nice, but ISP's get away with not providing that service anymore, in a cost-saving measure on their part.
Here are the reasons to create your own home page from scratch:
1. You do not become a tool of your ISP - no need to guess at their agenda
2. No ads, either blatant or subtle. Uh, yeah, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, here, because my blog has ads, but hey... I gotta make a living, ya know. Besides, this is your home page we're talking about. You have to eyeball it every day. Do you plan to view my blog every day? I won't discourage you, but really don't expect that level of devotion.
3. No ugliness (you are the creator, so obviously your home page is beautiful in every way)
4. All the right links for you
5. A little bit more privacy than would be the case if your ISP handled all of your links in your home page - do you want them to know what bank you use?
6. Pride of ownership - because you made something! You! Not the ISP!
In order to design your own home page, you do need to know the rudiments of hyper-text mark-up language (HTML). If you would like to learn about the language underpinning this and most web pages, try this specialized search. Even I refer to Google on a regular basis in order to jog my memory on various html commands. Few of us are gifted with a perfect memory when it comes to computer languages.
These days, everybody and their grandmother knows html, and I am hardly the first person to propose making a home page. The advanced trick lies in incorporating the search boxes from various search engines so that I can search google, IMDB, Wikipedia, YouTube, and so on from my home page without having to navigate to these pages. This way, not only do I conserve bandwidth on my end, but I save the search engine some bandwidth too. Maybe they should pay me for that. Hmm. Somehow, that seems unlikely. But I have finally found a way to get compensated for my inventions. Surely you have noticed the ads on this blog. I don't expect to get rich from them--not hardly. Maybe they will pay for a six pack of beer one of these days. A couple of years from now.
Here is an example of how to add the search engine for Wikipedia:
Search Wikipedia
Nice, huh? Be sure to click your "Back" button to come back here and read the rest of my blog. Don't get lost in Wikipedia as often happens to me. (I love Wikipedia.) Here is the actual html code:
Another useful feature your home page should have is the ability to look up definitions of words. This way, you will no longer have to use a printed dictionary. This is easily accomplished with the following code:
I still keep my trusty 1980 edition of Webster's NewWorld Dictionary beside my computer just in case the online definition fails to satisfy, which happens once a month or so. Online definitions tend to be short and snappy, to say the least. Also, I believe that there are some words for which you cannot find online definitions.
The other requirement for a decent home page is a place where you can check the local weather forecast. Now there are many commercial web sites offering the weather, but I prefer the site maintained by the U.S. government, which is only interested in my taxes (I hope) and not in selling me anything. The web site for the National Oceanic and Atmopheric Administration offers a free local forecast at: http://www.noaa.gov/. Navigate to your locality and then save that link, but not by using a bookmark, because we are getting more advanced than that. Bookmarks are fine for temporary links, but for something that you intend to use on a daily basis, forever, you really want that link to appear your home page. It is simpler to click within your home page than have to click on the menu for bookmarks and select from a long list of bookmarks.
When a nifty search engine comes to my attention, I study the html source code to try and cobble together code for my home page. The challenge is to find the code you need, while eliminating the extraneous code. Crisp and clean search engines like Google are easier to incorporate into your home page than busy web sites like IMDB or YouTube that have a hundred different things going on at once. Sometimes, you have to make adaptations. Here is my search box for IMDB:
It should be mentioned that adding a search box for Google is hardly necessary anymore, since Firefox adds such a search box to the upper right portion of the header bar. However, there are other functions that can be added as well that call upon the power of Google, such as a link for finding directions from your house to any other place in the world. Why should you have to enter your home address each time that you wish to search for directions? You should not, and with the help of Igor, will never do so again after modifying your home page with this little nugget.
First, you should navigate to http://maps.google.com/. Click on "Get Directions," and enter your home address. Do not enter a destination. Just press "Get Directions" and Google will show you a map of your home address. Next, click on the link over to the right that says, "Link," and Google will kindly generate for you the html that you require for your home page. You can insert this html directly into your home page and presto! You will never need to input your home address again! I am a big fan of this service and have used it often whenever my guests need directions to get somewhere.
I hope that these technical tips help you. In the past, I used to share the source code to my entire home page for free on internet forums in the interest of making the world a better place. But instead of gratitude, I was condemned as a "script-kiddy." People are paranoid these days and just won't accept html from anyone. For that reason, I have just outlined some of the main concepts of my home page here, and leave the rest to my reader's imagination.
For the record, it is unwise to let any ISP pick your home page or to use their email account. You may change ISP's at some point and your email account with them would then become inactive. All that I desire from my ISP is internet access, period! Usenet access would also be nice, but ISP's get away with not providing that service anymore, in a cost-saving measure on their part.
Here are the reasons to create your own home page from scratch:
1. You do not become a tool of your ISP - no need to guess at their agenda
2. No ads, either blatant or subtle. Uh, yeah, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, here, because my blog has ads, but hey... I gotta make a living, ya know. Besides, this is your home page we're talking about. You have to eyeball it every day. Do you plan to view my blog every day? I won't discourage you, but really don't expect that level of devotion.
3. No ugliness (you are the creator, so obviously your home page is beautiful in every way)
4. All the right links for you
5. A little bit more privacy than would be the case if your ISP handled all of your links in your home page - do you want them to know what bank you use?
6. Pride of ownership - because you made something! You! Not the ISP!
In order to design your own home page, you do need to know the rudiments of hyper-text mark-up language (HTML). If you would like to learn about the language underpinning this and most web pages, try this specialized search. Even I refer to Google on a regular basis in order to jog my memory on various html commands. Few of us are gifted with a perfect memory when it comes to computer languages.
These days, everybody and their grandmother knows html, and I am hardly the first person to propose making a home page. The advanced trick lies in incorporating the search boxes from various search engines so that I can search google, IMDB, Wikipedia, YouTube, and so on from my home page without having to navigate to these pages. This way, not only do I conserve bandwidth on my end, but I save the search engine some bandwidth too. Maybe they should pay me for that. Hmm. Somehow, that seems unlikely. But I have finally found a way to get compensated for my inventions. Surely you have noticed the ads on this blog. I don't expect to get rich from them--not hardly. Maybe they will pay for a six pack of beer one of these days. A couple of years from now.
Here is an example of how to add the search engine for Wikipedia:
Search Wikipedia
Nice, huh? Be sure to click your "Back" button to come back here and read the rest of my blog. Don't get lost in Wikipedia as often happens to me. (I love Wikipedia.) Here is the actual html code:
Another useful feature your home page should have is the ability to look up definitions of words. This way, you will no longer have to use a printed dictionary. This is easily accomplished with the following code:
I still keep my trusty 1980 edition of Webster's NewWorld Dictionary beside my computer just in case the online definition fails to satisfy, which happens once a month or so. Online definitions tend to be short and snappy, to say the least. Also, I believe that there are some words for which you cannot find online definitions.
The other requirement for a decent home page is a place where you can check the local weather forecast. Now there are many commercial web sites offering the weather, but I prefer the site maintained by the U.S. government, which is only interested in my taxes (I hope) and not in selling me anything. The web site for the National Oceanic and Atmopheric Administration offers a free local forecast at: http://www.noaa.gov/. Navigate to your locality and then save that link, but not by using a bookmark, because we are getting more advanced than that. Bookmarks are fine for temporary links, but for something that you intend to use on a daily basis, forever, you really want that link to appear your home page. It is simpler to click within your home page than have to click on the menu for bookmarks and select from a long list of bookmarks.
When a nifty search engine comes to my attention, I study the html source code to try and cobble together code for my home page. The challenge is to find the code you need, while eliminating the extraneous code. Crisp and clean search engines like Google are easier to incorporate into your home page than busy web sites like IMDB or YouTube that have a hundred different things going on at once. Sometimes, you have to make adaptations. Here is my search box for IMDB:
It should be mentioned that adding a search box for Google is hardly necessary anymore, since Firefox adds such a search box to the upper right portion of the header bar. However, there are other functions that can be added as well that call upon the power of Google, such as a link for finding directions from your house to any other place in the world. Why should you have to enter your home address each time that you wish to search for directions? You should not, and with the help of Igor, will never do so again after modifying your home page with this little nugget.
First, you should navigate to http://maps.google.com/. Click on "Get Directions," and enter your home address. Do not enter a destination. Just press "Get Directions" and Google will show you a map of your home address. Next, click on the link over to the right that says, "Link," and Google will kindly generate for you the html that you require for your home page. You can insert this html directly into your home page and presto! You will never need to input your home address again! I am a big fan of this service and have used it often whenever my guests need directions to get somewhere.
I hope that these technical tips help you. In the past, I used to share the source code to my entire home page for free on internet forums in the interest of making the world a better place. But instead of gratitude, I was condemned as a "script-kiddy." People are paranoid these days and just won't accept html from anyone. For that reason, I have just outlined some of the main concepts of my home page here, and leave the rest to my reader's imagination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)