Some notes on the PS3

I haz wun, and itz kewl.

To play regular BluRay discs, you have to turn off the setting that controls how 24Hz BDs are handled. I don't remember the exact name of the setting, but "automatic" apparently isn't. Set it to "no" and you're in.

BluRay movies are better than regular DVDs, but I'm still not sure the difference is entirely worth the price difference. The so-called "live" content could be cool if my network bandwidth were sufficient to play 1080 x 1920p streaming video. It isn't, but that's mostly my own fault. I could move my cable modem to the living room and hook up the PS3 wiredly. Stay tuned about that.

EA Sports' Tiger Woods PGA Golf 11 is very, very cool. It has an experience point system that isn't much unlike Dungeons and Dragons. This system permits you to improve your skills (and it has a lot of skill categories you can tweak), and with your XP you can "buy" things in the Pro Shop. Upgrade your clubs, buy a new hat, sunglasses, shoes, etc. And get this! Various clothing and golfing items improve your skills. Like, just yesterday I bought a pair of "+5% Green Reading" sunglasses for 500 XP. You get the idea.

They also have many add ons for the game: courses, special skill tweaks, etc. I can't really see paying $1.99 real money for a skill tweak. The fun is playing the game, not acquiring things. I do admit, though, that improving my golfing skills is fun. Case in point: when I played the Pebble Beach course the first time I think I scored about 12 over par. Last night I played it to even par, but along the way I had 5 birdies. Also 5 bogies, but I think it's clear I've improved.

One small kvetch: I think sand-saves should be worth XP, since it takes a fair amount of skill to save par after missing the green, especially if your par putt is within 4 feet.

BTW, Tiger Woods does work with the Move controller, but I had trouble getting more than about 60% on any of my shots. On Amazon, most of the complaints about the game was that it didn't work with the PS3 Move controller, but it does now. The putting game (mentioned below) works very well with the Move controller (I think the Move controller would be the preferred method of controlling your putt), but at the same time the Move controller is extremely sensitive to your movements. So much so that I think it makes using the Move not quite worth the effort. See below.

Ratchet and Clank (yeah, I know it's more than one game--they're all fun) is a fun game with interesting graphics, but I suck at shooters, in general, so I'm not having as much fun with this game as others might. Aiming seems to be my problem.

Blur, a racing game, is fun, but I haven't caught on to all the "power ups" you have to get just to have a chance of winning. There's no driving skill involved, at all, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Planet MiniGolf is quite a lot of fun, and it effectively uses the Move option (which I have) but I suck at steep uphill putts. I have also come to realize some courses require using the power ups just to get past some holes, a point to which I most strenuously object. I don't mind gimmicks, but the object of the game should not be to hit the power up on your first shot, just to be able to make the second shot.

BioShock is uber cool as a game (visuals, etc.), but I think the stress of playing it is too much. I'm also not that good at shooters (I did say that before, didn't I?) so getting killed every 5 minutes got sorta frustrating, after about the 10th time. I realize it just takes practice, but know this: I'm probably not motivated to spend the frigging hours it would take to become expert at shooting with the duoshock controller. But it does come in colors.

BTW, you definitely want to hook your PS3 to your interwebz. One word: Netflix streaming. OK, that was two words, but they have a lot of stuff, and the resolution is pretty good even considering my crappy wireless bandwidth. How duz they do that?

I've downloaded several games and even some golf game add ons from the Sony PlayStation Store. Yeah, it's a clear temptation, and tres convenient.

My overall impression of the Move option is that they haven't worked all the operability bugs out of it. It's usually too sensitive to movement and therefore very hard to use for menu navigation, etc. Sometimes it lags, too, but I understand this is fairly endemic to these kinds of game controllers.

The Sports Champions demo game they give away with the Move option is all but totally unplayable. Contrast that to the Wii, where a five-year-old can master the movement in a few minutes. I spent 10 minutes just trying to figure out how to throw the damn frisbee, and could never get it to work. It's just not supposed to be that hard.

Here are the Pros as I see them:

• HD-capable. Supports HDMI and digital optical sound output.
  
• Plays BluRay and regular DVDs.
• Video resolution is HD, and sound output is very good.
  
• Connects to the internet, and you can buy stuff online right from the device itself. This could be a con, too!
  
• Netflix streaming. We already had the regular DVD mail service, so this is a "free" added bonus.
• Tiger Woods PGA 11. Fantastic golf game. Addictive for anyone who likes golf (I happen to love golf).
• Will play streamed music, etc., from a Windows Media Server. Did I mention Windows 7 will function as a Media Server?
  

Some cons:

• Move controller is way too sensitive, making it very hard to use.
• Needs a keyboard if you want to do much in the way of data entry (like entering a 53 character random passphrase for your WPA-2 authentication).
• DVD remote has no power off button (minor gripe), but it is Bluetooth, so I suppose that's to be expected.
• If you connect the PS3 wirelessly to your network, expect it not to keep up with streamed music, very well. Wired connection would be better.
  

The Trolley Problem compared to lifesaving abortions

I read several posts by Ophelia Benson castigating the Bishop of Phoenix for condemning a Catholic hospital for aborting a pregnancy to save a woman's life. The Church was wrong about that one. So what does the Trolley Problem have to do with this? Well, before we talk about this, let's review the Principle of Double Effect and what that might have to do with evaluating moral right (or wrong).

The Trolley Problem forced someone to choose between two apparent wrongs. Or choosing the lesser of two evils, which is how most of us would act. Flipping the switch to force the trolley onto another track that would kill one person versus five people seems pretty clear. If someone is going to die, fewer is better than more. Shoving the fat man onto the tracks is not the same, because it's pretty clear that he may not stop the trolley and yet still be killed. There's room for doubt, so another alternative would be preferable. There is also the idea of intention. Flipping the switch involves no intention, except to minimize the damage. Throwing the fat man to his death is intentional, though one could suppose he might survive.

So this brings consequences into the discussion. Consequences instantly take the discussion away from the abstract, because if there were no negative consequences to an act (such as pushing a large rock onto the tracks to stop the trolley), then no one would argue against it. Even if the trolley had a dozen people on it; clearly there's a reasonable chance most, if not all, would survive a trolley crash. Blowing up the trolley would be unreasonable unless doing do would definitively save many more. You aren't intending to kill the passengers. Their deaths would be consequential to stopping the trolley.

An eleven-week-old fetus cannot survive without its mother, which is the case mentioned above at the beginning. If there was a way to save both mother and fetus, then that's what you would do. If saving the mother meant doing the abortion, it still seems quite ethical (and moral) to do it, particularly since saving someone whose contribution to both her family and society in general is much more readily quantifiable. No, it's not that her fetus has no value, it's that its value is objectively less than hers.

I suppose the doctors could have counseled the family that they were unable to perform the abortion due to Church strictures, leaving the door open for the family to take the woman to another facility for the procedure, but if she died because of the delay or during the transfer, the ostensibly moral hospital would still be complicit in her death. Medical ethics can't simply be put aside just because of Church-imposed "moral" directives. It's a tough call for the hospital and the doctors, perhaps, but they did the right thing, and should be applauded. If thine eye offends thee; pluck it out. If the Church fails to meet your needs, abandon it as you would a worn-out coat.

I'm not surprised the Church is so hard-line adamant about their rules. After all, you gotta have rules or else all you have is anarchy. Dogs living with cats. Mass hysteria. It's just a shame that women and children don't rate more highly in their ideas of proper morality. Then we might just have something. And as a final parting shot: The Church and Christians like to complain about persecution and a "War Against Christianity." Perhaps they'd be less of a target if they changed some of their stupid, medieval rules, and got with the program. N'est pas?