In Them Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more so. Vendramini argues that given the cold temperatures of ice-age Europe, that neanderthal bodies were covered in thick hair, making them resemble Big Foot more so than brutish early humans. In contrast, Levant-dwelling early humans lost their body hair as a result of neanderthal predation. Vendramini’s argument is that in an effort to differentiate themselves from their predators, early humans favored less hairy mates, thereby selecting for hairless bodies over time.

It’s an interesting theory, but we can’t help but raise the possibility that just because evidence of threaded needles hasn’t yet cropped up among neanderthal sites, that neanderthals didn’t utilize animal fur to supplement their body heat at all. A sizable piece of leather/fur could easily have been draped over the shoulders, for example, or a hole cut out for the head, and then the skin worn like a poncho, perhaps even fastened with a leather strip for a belt. We already know that neanderthals were intelligent, so why should we assume that they would not have thought of such a simple solution to a problem, when they were known to implement other tools and even fire. When we look at Vendramini’s estimates for neanderthal’s capability to live in certain temperature zones, alongside the possibility that they wore simple garments, we can envision a mostly hairless creature still getting by in colder regions. Or, if they were not hairless, their settlement range could have expanded further.

A problem with Vendramini’s “evidence” for supporting neanderthal predation (NP) theory is that he conveniently offers up explanations for things we know by using the NP theory, even though there’s no adequate evidence for causation. That’s not to say that it’s wrong, merely that we should remain skeptical without further evidence.

Take, for example, the hybridization argument, in which Vendramini argues that human-neanderthal hybrids would ultimately have been selected against, and hybrids killed or exiled from Levant encampments on the basis that anything neanderthal was bad. Simply, we don’t find the xenophobia argument convincing; perhaps Levant-dwelling early humans may have hated neanderthals if NP theory is true, but the lengths that early humans would have gone merely to generate a preference in non-neanderthal traits seems nonsensical. Since we know neanderthals were physically superior to early humans, then neanderthal physical traits would have been preferable to Levant-dwelling humans. So if hybridization did occur because of neanderthals raping human women as Vendramini contests, then any such hybrids born and raised by Levant-dwelling humans would have been better able to defend against future neanderthal raiders.

Vendramini does mention physical attributes that early humans would have had to select for in order to evade neanderthal raids, but the obvious isn’t mentioned: hybrids would have stood a better chance of surviving neanderthal attacks, and so genetically, hybrid seeds would have been beneficial for human survivability. This isn’t necessarily in opposition of NP theory, as we can argue two possible scenarios:

1. Sexual predation on-site was not a focal point of neanderthal raids, so the number of hybrid children born among Levant-dwelling humans was minimal, and an exception to the rule. This would make sense if the primary purpose of neanderthal raids was to obtain food. A hunting party would not needlessly risk injury by isolating its members if early humans were at least willing to fight back. If anything, sexual predation would have involved kidnapping of human women¹, but not typically involve on-site rape. The small number of hybrid children born in early human society meant that those who survived into adulthood would have been in a position to pass on their beneficial physical traits. Since they grew up among early humans, these hybrids would have generally acted like their human half-brothers, and defended against neanderthal raiders accordingly.

2. Neanderthal-human interbreeding was less a function of sexual predation as it was a function of trade or “intermarriage,” in which a neanderthal or early human joined the opposite group for some reason. NP theory may be correct, but its extent could be exaggerated. For example, periods of “peace” between neanderthal-human camps could have been brokered by the exchange of individuals and/or resources, with neanderthal raids again becoming common some time later. At the very least, the idea that neanderthals would kidnap human women, keep them alive long enough for them to give birth to hybrids, and then raise those hybrids in neanderthal society is a curious notion if NP theory is true: why raise the hybrid child if it’s physically weak compared to full-blooded neanderthal children? And further, why would a neanderthal take on a hybrid mate if it’s considered “weak,” without the context of simple politics?

Vendramini also argues that sexual control was asserted over Levant-dwelling early human women because of the fear of neanderthal predation. That answer doesn’t seem to follow from Vendramini’s belief that neanderthals raped human women, because no amount of control over human women by their male counterparts would have necessarily protected the women from neanderthal sexual predation. That is, unless human women prefered neanderthal mates, and would actively seek out a neanderthal male to copulate with.

Of all the arguments Vendramini makes, the ones involving sex are the most disappointing, because they don’t seem to hold up to proper scrutiny. Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is why neanderthals would bother to prey on early humans sexually in the first place? Why do we assume that there was a shortage of neanderthal females? And if there’s no such shortage, then why would a neanderthal male rape a female sapien when the victim is a sub-par example of neanderthal physical prowess? If NP theory is based on the idea that neanderthals gave in to primal desires for survival, then they would choose to mate with partners that would ensure survival of their offspring. To a neanderthal predator, this means copulating with another neanderthal, not a weak human.

Similar Posts:

• Violence is human. – The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight introduced us to Thom Hartmann’s concept of Older and Younger Cul…
• Thoughts from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. – Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important [take-aways](http://nat…
• The missing link? – Some undergrad in Africa found, on an expedition, an ancient skull belonging to a new genus and new …

The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight introduced us to Thom Hartmann’s concept of Older and Younger Cultures, the differences between the two being rather stark. In Hartmann’s view, Older Cultures embody sustainability and peaceful existence, which Easy to be Green summarizes thusly:

• Political Independence
• Egalitarian Structure
• Getting their resources from renewable local sources
• Having a unique sense of their own identity
• Respecting the identity of other tribes

Compare this to the synopsis of Younger Culture, which is the culture that modern humans subscribe to:

• Political Dominance
• Established hierarchy: clear authority structures
• Acquiring resources through trade and conquest
• Absorbing other cultures into their own identity
• Genocidal warfare against others

Hartmann obviously idolizes Older Culture, and for good reason: there are many benefits to following an Older Culture lifestyle, which is realized by some Younger Culture members who decide to live greener, steer clear of commercialism, focus on eating “real food,” etc. But a major component of Hartmann’s differentiation between Younger and Older Cultures is the emphasis on war and conflict, which Hartmann minimizes when he describes Older Culture. To be fair, it’s common to see our ancient ancestors painted in this light: being close to the natural world, respecting all living things, and only occasionally being involved in conflict with neighboring tribes. But something about Hartmann’s portrayal that such conflict was usually non-fatal doesn’t sit well with us. Perhaps it’s a pessimistic view of human nature on our part, but while we acknowledge that Younger Culture may inherently be more violent than Older Culture, we don’t accept that Older Culture was somehow lacking these elements.

We’re currently reading Them Us by Danny Vendramini, which thus far is an excellent read. Without going into too much detail, Them Us details a theory of human evolution that relies on what Vendramini calls the Neandertal Predation Theory, wherein Vendramini describes our Neandertal cousins as apex predators that early homo sapiens ran into during our early settlement of the Levant. Vendramini points out that other primates (also typically painted as generally peaceful) are not without violent intent, as they participate in both coalitionary killing (group-based, violent encounters) as well as lethal raiding (targeted violence at a neighbor’s location). Vendramini points out that Neandertals were likely to share these traits with modern primates, just as we humans possess them today.

The take-away is that Hartmann may be correct in saying that warfare as we know it today was not practiced in Older Cultures¹, as the notion of a standing army simply doesn’t make sense in such a setting. But to disavow extremely violent behavior in Older Cultures is a disservice to what we are: animals. That’s not to say that this behavior is necessarily logical in the sense that we may think it from a “civilized” perspective, but it’s still instinctual behavior that stems from something, and similar behavior can be seen in animals today, primates included. That something can be as simple as basic survival, such as fending off predators or even to provide food in a time of limited resources. Other times, that something may be more complex, because when we see the behavior in modern primates or even wolf populations, lethal raiding doesn’t always make sense, and the targets of violence can appear isolated from previous interactions with the aggressor. Regardless, it seems that limited violence is at the core of our species, however unethical our minds tell us it is.

Similar Posts:

• Thoughts from the 2011 Ancestral Health Symposium. – Over at Naturally Engineered, David Csonka gave a brief rundown of important [take-aways](http://nat…
• Neanderthals, body hair, and sex. – In Them Us, Danny Vendramini asserts that neanderthals were as furry as other primates, if not more …
• We’ve too many people. – On recommendation, we started reading The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann, a book ov…

Historians believe that at the end of World War II, the Third Reich managed to hide considerable gold stores before succumbing to the Allied invasion. Some of these gold stores were discovered shortly after the war ended, but others may still lay undiscovered, as though some sort of Nazi-pirate treasure.

Nazi archives show that battalions of Organisation Todt – the Third Reich’s main labour organisation – were shipped into the Leinawald in 1944 on the orders of Hitler’s armaments minister Albert Speer.

According to the working theory, the Germans buried what today amounts to $800 million in gold in an underground complex, marking it with sand workings in the shape of a human skull¹. Aerial photography and historical accounts confirm the general location of the gold stash, which remains hidden despite earlier attempts by treasure-seekers and the German government to find it.

There are a couple questions we have with the scenario, however. One, why did Albert Speer not mention any of this in his memoirs, particularly after coming to realize the details of the Holocaust and the likely source of some of that gold? And two, why would the German government seek out the gold in 1961, knowing that if it was found, the government would likely have to give it up anyway? If there were individuals alive at the end of the war who were aware of this cache, why wouldn’t they have invested considerable time by now to discover the lode and pilfer the riches?

The tale is a good one, and though there are probably several instances of hidden Nazi stashes still left to be discovered, stashes of this size are likely the stuff of legend rather than fact. We’ll know for sure in a month or so.

Similar Posts:

• Military computer systems evolving. – I caught a pretty interesting article over at Wired about how the [US military is using computers](h…
• Who to trust less: governments, or corporations? – When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies lik…
• Two names, one sentence, bad mojo. – I don’t know how one can say that public relations are hampered by this kind of event, but that’s th…

When someone residing in Europe pointed out to us how distraught they were that online companies like PayPal require seemingly irrelevant banking information just to handle money already in the account, something occurred to us: in general, Europeans are very sensitive about privacy issues as far as commercial entities go. That is to say, they prefer corporations to have minimal information on people, while they are generally okay with their governments having this same information. Considering that Europe is a land that has had plenty of authoritarian rulers, particularly those who had no qualms with repeatedly ignoring the idea of a citizen’s right to privacy, the Europeans remains alright with the idea that their governments may, from time to time, ignore privacy in the course of, say, national security matters. At minimum, this suggests that Europeans have a strong degree of faith in their governments and investigative authorities. However, Europeans don’t seem to trust corporations as much; corporations are seen as much more likely to abuse information collected in the pursuit of profit.

On the flip-side, we have the United States, where citizens pretty freely give up private information to corporations as part of the cost of going about their lives (e.g. Facebook, Mint, PayPal.) However, the idea that their government might try to obtain some of this information is distasteful, despite the fact that the United States does not have the same history as European governments for blatantly disrespecting its citizen’s privacy; the United States government has never been as corrupt as, say, the Third Reich, European monarchies, etc. Why do Americans have so little faith in their government when it comes to national security matters, while seemingly more “progressive” countries don’t consider this nearly as large an issue? Meanwhile, Americans pass an enormous amount of private information to companies they believe they can trust, who naturally tend to sell this information for money.

Who has the right idea?

Similar Posts:

• Big Brother can’t hang with iOS. – The Washington Post [reports](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-government-loos…
• A Farm Corps? – In The New York Times, Nicolette Hahn Niman proposes [five things](http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeb…
• Google helps hackers. – If it’s not Back Orifice invading your privacy, it’s our favorite Internet search engine, Google. Wi…

It’s hard to believe that we’re nearing the end of the life cycle for the 7th generation of video game consoles. With speculation growing about what the 8th console generation will bring, Maxator threw his thoughts into the mix.

This generation was extended by the horrific economy and the late addition of motion sensing hardware by Microsoft/Sony and improvement of the Wiimotes with the Motion Plus dongle. That said, the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 have all exceeded the previous standard of four or so years between console generations…

It does seem like the current console generation has lasted awhile, but per Wikipedia, that’s not entirely true. It turns out that gauging generation length isn’t straightforward.

One way to determine the duration of a generation is to look at the length of sales for a given technology (e.g. 8-bit). The problem here is that sales length doesn’t account for technology availability causing generational overlap. For example, Playstation sales continued even after the Playstation 2 was launched, and new titles still continued to appear on the Playstation. Disregarding availability of newer technology means that the duration of older generations appear longer. (This would mean that the 3rd console generation lasted a solid 12 years.)

A second method for determining generation length is to consider a generation over once newer technology is available for sale. In other words, rather than factoring in the Playstation’s full sale’s life, we can consider it dead as soon as newer technology (e.g. the Playstation 2) became available. Under this method, the 4th generation has lasted the longest, with a record nine years.

Still, this means the current console generation has already lasted six years, and puts it in a position to last another year or two depending on how quickly the Big Three can bring a new console to market.

Nintendo, the old stand-by.

Compared to its competitors, Nintendo made waves with the Wii by introducing comparatively weak hardware, but at a cheaper price point and with an innovative control system. Maxator believes the “Wii HD” will be revealed at E3 in June.

I expect more of an iterative approach, then an all out new console, similar to Nintendo’s market strategy with the DS. I see a vastly improved processor with the same architecture allowing backwards compatibility with older Wii games. HDMI output for HD resolution is a no brainer and I don’t see a change in the controller…

Backwards compatibility is a must for the Wii, but a small, iterative approach won’t do. Considering that most Wii gamers are casual and/or younger, buyers will be more likely to ask what the huge differences are to justify a hardware swap-out. Merely adding a small speed bump and 1080p resolution isn’t enough, and we wouldn’t gamble against Nintendo finally jumping back into the competitive fray and offering a true graphics-monster. Hardware isn’t taking huge leaps like it did several years ago, which means incorporating cutting-edge graphics into a next-gen console isn’t as costly as it once was.

Of course, Wiimotes will likely stick around, and they may see small, iterative improvements. Nintendo will either continue playing up their ground-breaking motion controllers and keep them primary to the experience (unlike add-ons like Move and Kinect), else reveal an even more innovative control scheme (which is unlikely).

Lastly, for licensing and cost reasons alone, DVD is much more likely than BluRay… Look for a $250-300 price tag.

We’re rather inclined to suggest that Nintendo might forego optical media entirely and just push on with digital distribution. The Wii has been a successful platform for this already, and the technology is no longer proof-of-concept, with XBox Arcade having solidified the concept in gamer’s minds. If a new Nintendo console doesn’t compete graphically with other 8th-gen consoles, then digital distribution is even more likely, since it’s graphics that primarily increase file size. Either way, Nintendo will likely try to come in at the same price-point the Wii did, managing to beat the competition by at least $50 at the register.

Sony, the other Japanese Empire.

The biggest problem Sony had is fragmented, inconsistent hardware. Early PS3s sported on-chip backwards compatibility and a slew of USB ports, while later versions had software-based backwards compatibility that was later phased out. Unlike other consoles, the PS3 has lost more features than it’s gained, and that phenomenon has put many would-be owners off.

Given their entirely unimaginative and conservative hardware philosophy, I see a faster processor, same “gnome hands only” blocky controller, and of course included BluRay and hard drives. Boring but powerful and probably at a significantly lower price point than the PS3 started at, likely $350-400.

Sony has indeed played it safe, focusing its energies on what’s worked in the past, and the next-gen Sony console likely won’t be any different. Cutting edge hardware, a similar controller scheme, and a high price tag are to be expected, being traditional Sony fare. Even Nintendo and Sega played more loosey-goosey with hardware reveals in the past, whereas Sony is sticking to an old formula that may not play out well in the long-run. We’ve argued in the past that Sony’s largest benefactor is its reputation, but with poor moves like removing features over time, that reputation isn’t as strong as it used to be. If Sony doesn’t do more than react to its competitors (e.g. Move), then its 8th generation console will be like the Nintendo 64.

Microsoft, the Evil One.

Microsoft has been reactive to its competition as well, but they’ve taken better notes than Sony. While everyone expected a Wiimote copy-cat accessory, Microsoft responded with Kinect, and they’ve refined their UI and online offerings well. (The 360 UI still sucks, but it’s gotten better.) The big question will be how well Kinect does, and whether a more powerful Kinect accessory will be standard-fare in Microsoft’s next-gen entry.

I still see the “Xbox Next” being drive-free with an optional BluRay drive, ala their approach to the failed HD DVD.

It’s doubtful that Microsoft would suddenly jump on the BluRay bandwagon; they’ve actually signed onto a multi-company agreement not to adopt BluRay, along with such faux allies as Apple. Few companies are hedging their bets on BluRay anymore, and it’s arguably the last optical media format anyway. Just as the Wii has proven to have a good online marketplace, XBox Arcade has proven itself quite successful, offering many indy and older titles. Chances are, the next-gen Microsoft console will keep Arcade alive, and offer bigger, more spectacular games.

Of course, by offering digital downloads for blockbuster titles, Microsoft’s next console will absolutely need a larger hard drive, and for this they may take Apple’s cue and consider going with more reliable SSDs. The only obstacle here is cost, but with a Microsoft 8th generation console release in 2012, that may not be a huge issue, especially if they can skirt optical media and take a larger cut of indy sales.

Apple, the unlikely player.

It shouldn’t be a huge surprise that iOS has become a huge platform for mobile gaming, and with iOS now entering the living room thanks to the new Apple TV, it’s not a huge stretch to assume that Apple may use this as a springboard for home video gaming. We agree with Maxator, however, that full-on support of this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Don’t expect Apple to join the console wars anytime soon. Jobs has never made an effort to support gaming and with the entry costs of the console market being so high, I can’t see him hurting his stock price on a longterm risky investment. Plus, they are already happily making 20% on every repackaged Atari game on the iPad/Phone.

While Jobs has spoken to Apple gaming in the past, each Apple gaming headline has stood alone, with no real followup from Apple. With one failed console already on their books, Apple’s only now getting real gaming press because of how successful iOS has become. Apple’s 30% cut on all iOS apps is definitely helping the company out, and the large number of iOS gamers is notable by Apple using games in first-party advertising. But, most huge iOS gaming titles are casual games, and while deeper games on iOS do exist, they’re only now starting to really take off (e.g. id’s Rage).

Any Apple entry into the console wars will be natural, built on developer desire rather than Apple outright declaring a gaming console. Whereas most console companies have positioned their devices as gaming devices first and media devices second, Apple will work the other way around if they do eventually want to offer big-screen gaming. This means that any Apple console effort will remain dependent on the success of the Apple TV, which could easily evolve to support a solid gaming platform built on existing hardware. (Imagine multi-touch, mostly buttonless controllers that look like a handheld Magic Trackpad, complete with gyroscope.)

Dreams aside, Apple is already doing what many thought impossible: challenging Nintendo on the mobile gaming front. Apple doesn’t need to position their devices as gaming devices, because developers have already embraced them as such, even though they’re not really considered gaming devices as far as their primary functionality goes. Still, expect better games on iOS devices as the 8th generation console wars rage, but don’t expect to Apple to take this market on head-to-head just yet.

OnLive, the underdog hero.

While OnLive may not be able to compete in the motion-control arena, it’s a notable platform that deserves mention, even if it wasn’t on Maxator’s list. OnLive is a platform that bridges the gap between PC games and console games, and with it’s “console” client being offered for a mere $100, it already competes with the Big Three on graphical terms. They key to OnLive will be leveraging the success of big-name MMOs, which console gamers might want access to, but may not have the PC desktop power to play well. Since OnLive should be able to scale to play these titles as well as its current library (which is more console-centric), OnLive immediately establishes a niche market that’s still unrealized. The big question here is how fast OnLive can offer blockbuster titles compared to the Big Three, and how fast they can grow their infrastructure. Potentially, however, OnLive can challenge any of the Big Three as far as traditional console gaming goes, and could make hardware upgrades for PC gaming a thing of the past, too.

Similar Posts:

• Nintendo must be high. – The rumour band-wagon is hastily moving forward that a gyroscopic controller from Microsoft will ful…
• Microsoft Kinect: a cute novelty. – We haven’t weighed in on Microsoft’s Kinect (formerly “Project Natal”) because we haven’t seen anyth…
• Another generation battles. – In the early days of console gaming, one’s choices were pretty limited. When ATARI wasn’t the main p…

We randomly came across mention of Vibram Five Fingers over at the Mnmlist blog, where author Leo bought a pair despite his “less stuff” philosophy. Curiosity piqued, we had to check them out, and so we started to do our research on the Five Fingers, and the barefoot philosophy that’s earned a very strong niche following.

Background.

It turns out, our feet evolved into one of our most complex skeletal features for a reason. With so many bones and joints, our feet are designed to be incredibly adaptable to terrain changes, aided in part by the feedback our brains get when the terrain beneath us changes form (causing us to shift our posture, gait, stride, etc). In addition to our physical endurance, this evolution allowed humans to become persistence hunters, in which we effectively ran our prey to their deaths. And, we were able to do this despite the fact that we did not strap hooves to our feet.

That all changed when aesthetic variables came into play in the western world. Earlier generations wore leather footwear roughly equivalent to what we think of as a moccasin. This provided our feet with basic protection, but apparently not enough visual appeal. So, Europeans added impractical heels to our footwear, which required a thicker, less flexible sole. The result was an arguably more appealing figure, complete with the curves and stance still present in modern fashion. Of course, this change also resulted in footwear that cut off much of the tactile feedback our brains got from our feet feeling the ground beneath us. Furthermore, with more rigid soles and heels, we began walking “heel-first,” and rolling our feet to our toes before kicking off. This was a far cry from earlier days, when the balls or middle of our feet hit the ground first, and our toes sprung our next kick forward.

Interestingly, you can see the difference between walking with shoes and walking barefoot immediately. Even if it’s the same person. Try it out yourself and pay attention.

Some studies show that the thicker a shoe’s heel/sole, the harder a wearer slams their heel into the ground when walking, as though the brain is subconsciously trying to get the feedback it desires. This heel-slamming that we do in modern society, it damages our knees and joints, because it’s not how our bodies were designed to take shocks. Similarly, changes in posture, resulting from modern shoes, provide other problems as well, such as shin splints, back pain, and the aforementioned knee problems. All because shoes themselves, courtesy of thick soles, aren’t good for our bodies.

The shoe industry, of course, has adopted. It puts a band-aid on some of our problems by adding more cushion, or curving the toes up to make up for the lack of spring our toes would naturally provide. They add “pumps,” soles that flair out, arch support, and a whole slew of other changes (not to mention aesthetic ones), but few companies look to actually alleviate the health problems modern footwear has produced by directly tackling the underlying issues.

Vibram is a company that’s actually looking to address the core problem. They, and other companies, believe in producing shoes with very thin soles, allowing our brains to get far more tactile feedback than with conventional footwear. Most companies like this still opt for close-toed shoes that still benefit somewhat from additional toe movement, but Vibram took things to another level with their Five Fingers line.

Five Fingers are gloves for feet. They provide a thin Vibram sole and pockets for individual toes. This allows a wearer’s toes to move independently and provide natural spring to a run, and because the wearer can utilize their toes more naturally, and their feet too, stability and agility are enhanced accordingly. Vibram’s idea was to give people the barefoot advantage and still provide some level of protection, and judging from the many reviews out there, Vibram has succeeded stunningly with their Five Fingers line.

Models, and sizing.

When we decided to pull the trigger on a Five Fingers shoe, we first had to determine what model we wanted. The main factor in our decision was that we wanted a jack-of-all-trades shoe for daily use. We would still be wearing dress shoes to the office, but when at home, or working out, we wanted a shoe that would work just as well around town as it did running on pavement or going on light hikes. For us, this meant a shoe that was closed on top, and that eliminated three models from the get-go (Classic, Moc, and Sprint). One of three remaining models was ideal for watersports (Flow), but not necessarily for land sports, and one model (KSO Trek) came with a somewhat thicker sole offering better traction for more robust hiking. The “do-all” model that, perhaps, wasn’t overly specialized, was the KSO.

While REI carries the Five Fingers, their selection varies from store to store. Some stores, in fact, don’t carry them at all, and those that do have stocking issues because supply isn’t currently meeting demand. The KSOs and Treks require a size-down adjustment from the other models, so while our local REI didn’t have the KSOs in our size, we were able to try on three sizes in the Classics and Sprints. By the time we left the store, we figured we’d be a 40 in the KSOs, and immediately got online to place an order. Of course, by the time our order arrived, we were dismayed to find that the shoe was too small. It turns out that the black/black KSOs run small, so we returned our 40s and placed another order.

The 41s we received were quite snug. Arguably, we could have gone up another size, and we’re fairly confident that a 41 would be perfect in any other colour or model. Still, the 41s in KSO black/black didn’t feel uncomfortable at all. So, we took them for a spin.

Day one.

Because of the toe pockets, and that our toes are used to being scrunched up somewhat in traditional shoes, getting the KSOs on took a couple minutes. It’s not difficult, but it still takes a little patience to get the smaller toes lined up correctly. In our case, it was the little toe that didn’t naturally slide into its own pocket right away, and instead curled towards its neighbor for safety.

Walking around the house felt good, like some odd combination of socks and slippers. Stepping outside where it was around 50 degrees out, our feet immediately felt the chill. The mesh on top of the shoes doesn’t do much for keeping wind out, and though our long bootcut jeans may have helped a little, it wasn’t enough. With certainty, we can say that we felt the ground better, but we obviously didn’t notice small gravel on the sidewalks. It wasn’t until we stepped on a rock about the size of a marble that we felt uncomfortable pressure, which we would have just rolled over without much thought in our other shoes.

Back to the jeans, the thin sole of the KSOs obviously reduces our height somewhat. In hiking boots, which we’re used to wearing, our jeans are the perfect length, but with most casual shoes, the edge of the back can drag on the ground. Similarly, with the KSOs, our jeans end up getting dirty because the back bottom either ends up dragging on the ground, else is outright stepped on. Without buying a new pair or becoming a seamstress, we figure we can just deal with it, else maybe cut a small slit in the back so the bottom flays out a bit more. Either way, future jeans purchases will take this into account.

A quick trip through town proved that the KSOs were comfortable. We were concerned with the snugness of the fit more than once, not because there was any discomfort, but out of buyer’s paranoia. In fact, our toes had great movement through the shoes despite that two toes on each foot were pretty much touching the end of their respective toe pockets. If anything, the feel of the wind, that we could spread our toes, and the thin sole, pretty much made our feet feel like they were barefoot, or at least close to it. But how would they hold up running?

We decided to go for a jog with our dog, and ended up doing a couple sprints along what amounted to approximately 16 blocks. It quickly became obvious that running on pavement and landing on the balls of one’s feet isn’t exactly super-comfortable. That is to say, impact to this area of the foot isn’t something we were used to while running. It didn’t hurt, but we half expected to bruise this area of the foot if we continued on. Beyond this expectation, however, our feet felt fine, and we naturally avoided landing with our heels. Indeed, it may simply have been a placebo of sorts, but we felt like we could spring forward from a stride much easier now that our toes we free from their typical footwear cages.

Stability-wise, our short jaunt felt good. So good, in fact, that we felt tempted to jump up on low walls like a newbie ninja-in-training. There’s a reason people don’t tend to roll their ankles when barefoot, and that stability is offered by the Five Fingers without question. It’ll probably take a while to acclimate our bodies to barefoot movement overall, but at slower speeds, the transition is automatic, if only because we’re used to moving around barefoot slowly. At speed is in another issue, because it’s rare that we run around barefoot, so it’s no surprise that when we enter speed-walking or running mode, that we tend to drop our heels into the ground pretty heavily.

By the end of our little jog, we noticed that our feet had warmed up considerably, and that they felt pretty cozy by the time we returned home. Given the temperature outside, we estimate that it’d be pretty comfortable running in these shoes most of the year on the east coast.

The next three days.

When we woke up the following morning, we definitely noticed soreness in our calves. Reports from other new Five Fingers users noted this pain, but we casually dismissed it. But no, it’s true: the muscles designed to stabilize our feet while moving barefoot atrophy in most individuals because they’re simply not used much thanks to modern footwear. In our case, our calves felt about what we expect them to the day after working them out at the gym, only in this situation, we didn’t intend to work them out specifically, and didn’t notice much stress on them in our very short run the day earlier.

With limited time to work out the next couple days, we simply managed to go on short walks after work in our Five Fingers, dog in tow. Nothing particularly notable about these walks other than an adjustment in gait to compensate for the heel-striking in our normal, long stride. We’ll add, though, that we naturally began to prefer walking on grass or dirt than pavement, because it feels so much better. In normal shoes, we like the idea of walking off pavement, but stability-wise, pavement feels better. In Five Fingers, walking off-road is simply a better experience all-around.

That said, hanging out in the dog park, which at this time of year is a little muddy, tended to make the bottom of our feet cold when we weren’t moving much. Just throwing a ball around with minimal movement around the field definitely impacted foot comfort, as our feet would have been more comfortable at least wearing socks. Given that our KSOs are already very snug, we’ll likely rule out socks unless we later decide to get a slightly roomier pair of Five Fingers. We’ll still wear our KSOs in these situations, but when autumn sheds into winter later in the year, we’ll obviously have to make a decision as to what to do.

On our last walk in the Five Fingers over the three day period owning the KSOs, we walked over an old cobblestone street, which made us realize the implications of barefoot movement. Modern society, or in this case recent history, clearly dictated adjustments to footwear even beyond aesthetic considerations. Using the cobblestone street as an example, moving across the man-made pathway in our KSOs was about as uncomfortable as driving a car down the same stretch. While the walk was fine when we carefully chose our footing for each step, moving from stone-top to stone-top, a blind walk down the street simply wasn’t comfortable.

We’d be happy to hear that this was only because we’re not used to the feeling, and that our feet will toughen up to this type of terrain over time, but given the experience, we reckon we’d sooner avoid these types of streets in the future. Picturing us distracted where our gaze isn’t on the stones in front of us, we can only imagine a painful outcome to a run down this same street. That said, after returning home, the Five Fingers remained on our feet, where they felt super-comfortable just hanging out. We can definitely see replacing our slippers with a pair of Mocs in the future.

By day three, only a slight soreness in our calves remain. This weekend, we’ll opt for more activity in our KSOs, as we intend to wear them all weekend long. We’ll continue to comment on the experience as time goes on, and if there is reader interest.

Similar Posts:

• Fivefingers: beyond the first week. – Our first week wearing Vibram Fivefingers made for an interesting experience, and while we intended …
• More toe shoes! – The 2011 autumn lineup for Vibram’s FiveFinger’s line looks good. Birthday Shoes, the de facto outle…
• Keeping Nike’s grubby paws off my $29. – I hate running. It’s a boring, uncomfortable routine that months of practicing didn’t make any more …

We love this quote by Ed Finkler, which we spied over at Daring Fireball:

When folks need an elevator, we should give them an elevator, not an airplane. We’ve been giving them airplanes for 30 years, and then laughing at them for being too stupid to fly them right.

Finkler pretty much identifies what’s so great about the iPad. Not necessarily for power users, but for the non-computer nerds out there (i.e. 99% of the populace). An interesting thing we noticed is that most people (Apple fans and otherwise) weren’t particularly enthralled by the iPad when it was officially announced last month, but many have warmed to the idea since, despite the fact that Apple hasn’t revealed anything further on the device.

The iPad is already being called a “task-oriented” device, rather than what most computers are today: complex, prone to user-induced slow-down, and a great method to run multiple tasks at once. The benefit to this latter factor, however, remains questionable, and it’s certainly not a stipulation that 99% of the population needs.

The “old way” of thinking, insofar as computer development goes, is to build upon what’s already been done. Look at Microsoft: how many iterations of DOS were there before Windows, and how long did it take before Windows 95 stood on its own with DOS as a secondary consideration? And even though a windowing system made more sense to the average computer user, it wasn’t necessarily less complicated, because the underlying system was still exposed to a degree. Even OS X, which we consider the most usable desktop OS for the non-nerd isn’t entirely sensible out-of-box. For instance, we haven’t met a new OS X user yet who understands without our mention that closing a window in OS X doesn’t close the program. It’s not just as case of “Fuck, multitasking is hard,” nor one of simply staying attuned to visual indicators on the dock that a given applications, even sans windows, is still resident in memory. It’s an issue of multitasking (that is, at the user level) being mostly unnecessary in the first place. So why burden the user with cleaning up finite memory space, when all they want to do is write a letter while listening to some music in the background?

Why’d consoles become the gaming platform of choice when PC gaming offered better gaming opportunities well before, say, first person shooters (FPS) ever grabbed the public’s attention? How many now-legendary FPS traveled through gamers’ hard drives before Goldeneye became a flashing success on the Nintendo 64? PC gaming didn’t catch on because it was difficult, not in the gameplay sense, but in the setup sense. Under DOS, it wasn’t just a matter of installing a game, it was a matter of wrangling enough free memory to play it. For those of who who can’t remember tweaking the shit out of config.sys and autoexec.bat, you have no idea what lengths gamers will go through just to play the awesomest title ever. Messing with those two files became an art, one that’s now lost to time.

The point is, when it comes to consoles, you pop a disc or cartridge into the console, and can start gaming only moments later. When it comes to mundane computer tasks like laying out some pictures to send as a homemade Christmas card, users shouldn’t have to jump through a half-dozen screens just to install a new program after coming home from the computer store. Nor should they have to worry that once they’re done, they’ve left something running that will slow their computer to a crawl days later, because it ends up being one of ten things they didn’t realize stayed running in the background.

The iPad is simple. All apps come from one place, and that place doesn’t require any physical travel. There’s no messing with a file system hierarchy, and when you leave a program, it’s closed down or simply doesn’t affect other tasks in the background. It’s not only simple, but straightforward.

A machine for everyone.

We’ve said before that the iPad should serve most computer users admirably, without the need for another computer. Truth is, it’s not just grandma and grandpa who could benefit from the iPad. If you think about it, most college students can do everything they need to with an iPad also. The only stipulation are those who study computers and need more oomph, like Computer Science majors who need a platform they can develop on. For everyone else, the only potential obstacle is specialized software, but with the power behind the A4, we’d argue that most specialized applications could probably be ported to the iPad without issue. How long before CAD programs, analytical software, etc makes it onto the AppStore? Sure, there will always be a small segment of the computer-using populace that will have to rely on an incredibly specific software package that the respective developer refuses to port, but with accessibility the AppStore offers, and the support Apple provides for an external iPad keyboard, the sky is ultimately the limit for most programs.

While some applications will still shine brighter if they can be run on systems with larger screen sizes, this too isn’t necessarily an issue: an A/V cable may provide video-out for just these types of applications. For everyone else, including those who currently rely on 13″ screens for daily work, the iPad is already capable of serving as a lightweight workhorse. And for those that do need more powerful machines, there’s always the local school lab, office computer, etc.

If the iPad proves itself successful (and we think it will), it’s only a matter of time before the iPhone/iPad platform is expanded to devices with larger screens. For all we know, the iPhone heralded the birth of a new computer interface altogether, and it may not be more than a couple years before Apple’s primary computer lineup looks more like the iPad, and less like a Macbook.

Similar Posts:

• iTablet AppStore has its downsides. – By now, the rumour-wagon has settled on the idea that Apple’s purported [tablet device](http://darin…
• ]\ – We’ve been somewhat critical of the Apple TV as a gaming console, and when [we last wrote about the …
• Personal computing – We expect that a lot of people don’t know what “PC” stands for, or at least give it any real thought…

Lots of folk are annoyed at Bioware’s revelation of “companion characters” in the upcoming Star Wars MMORPG, whereby “companion characters” are NPC group-members that can stand-in when groups can’t find other players to fill certain roles, such as healers and tanks. Keen was one of the first to vocalize his aggression:

Why don’t you just make it a single player game? I do not understand this mentality of making a MMO and then taking all these steps and putting in all these systems to make it anything but a multiplayer experience. What is the point? Make it another Bioware RPG and stop jerking us around by jumping onto the “We’re a MMO!” bandwagon.

Looks like Keen, like many others, doesn’t get that not every MMOG player wants to group and raid, which has become a common sentiment among MMOG bloggers, lately. Whereas before World of Warcraft (WoW), lots of people wanted a more solo-able experience, the exact opposite is true now among “real” gamers. But these folks need to realize that MMOGs are going to cater to both camps, whether everyone likes it or not. The fact is, MMOGs are a pretty cheap form of entertainment compared to blowing through multiple 20-hour single-player games every month, so for “hardcore” gamers who want single-player experiences, the MMOG is a valid outlet. This is particularly true when one considers factors that support the single-player experience yet is based on the player populace at large, such as player-made goods, auction houses, et al.

If anything, NPC party members will be a good thing because it will somewhat allow more casual gamers to participate in group contact that they might otherwise be shut out of. No more stalling public groups because the baby is crying, or because mom and dad called your tank to the dinner table. The more pertinent issue at hand is the effectiveness of NPC party members, and this is where careful play balancing needs to take place. In other words, assuming that NPC party members could be written to be as intelligent as players as far as respective group roles are concerned, they shouldn’t. A good player tank should always be better than an NPC tank, whereas the NPC tank should probably be better than a poor tank. This will force poor players to up their game or get out, and as long as certain encounters are written to require good players, then mostly NPC parties won’t be able to succeed in top-rate instances anyway, so the “hardcore” can still have their cake.

Another bonus to this is that even at low levels, Bioware can require players to participate in groups. This way, from the get-go, players will learn how to play their class in a group environment, rather than having to learn end-game mechanics such as threat, aggro, healing, et al upon reaching end-game. It’s a good idea that more MMOG developers should explore, rather than shy away from because of a thousand angry Keens.

Similar Posts:

• Learn to DPS, please. – I’m not sure why the title of his blog is not consistent with his subdomain, but pelides runs a blog…
• Established IP = successful MMOG. – Let’s clarify that: in order for the next big massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) to become a r…
• Most self-described “hardcore” PvP gamers are likely full of shit. – Scott Jennings makes a great point about why Darkfall won’t make it in the end: …people enjoy har…

When we decided to adopt an American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT), we knew that we’d be fighting an uphill battle against the ignorant masses. Thanks to exaggerated, biased media reports that sell their stories by promoting fear-mongering, the press has demonized a number of dog breeds under the “pitbull” label. It’s unfortunate for a variety of reasons, not the least which is the euthanizing of hundreds of “pitbulls” in shelters across the United States.

While we did a fair amount of research into the APBT and related breeds, it’s since become more and more obvious to us that the media is still on its mission to place blame on the wrong parties. The Michael Vick story helped bring certain elements of the issue to light, but the damage to “pitbull” breeds was done by Sports Illustrated years ago, and the damage likely won’t be undone for many years to come, if ever. And it’s not just the media, but regular folks who regurgitate untruths because they simply don’t know any better. For the purpose of promoting facts, let’s clarify some points for those whose knowledge of “pitbulls” is based entirely on hearsay and partial information.

First off, there is no “pitbull” breed. The media lumps several breeds under this label, to include the APBT, American Bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and others. This even includes mastiff mixes and other mutts. Basically, any dog that vaguely visually resembles a stocky, yet athletic dog, similar in appearance to the APBT, is designated a “pitbull.” Interestingly, the APBT is the only breed with “pitbull” in its name, and it’s the second smallest of the aforementioned breeds. In fact, of those breeds, only the American Bulldog typically exceeds 85lb in weight. Stories of 100+lb pitbulls refer to mastiffs or mastiff mixes. The APBT, for example, maxes out at around 60lbs for a male. APBT’s on the lower end weigh as little as 30lbs. But to understand the “pitbull,” one has to know more than its size.

A little history.

One of the first things anyone will tell you about the “pitbull” is that it was bred to fight other dogs, but this is only a half-truth. To understand the whole picture, one has to go even further back in history. All of the aforementioned breeds have a common ancestor: the old English bulldog. This bulldog breed weighed 45 pounds average (the median weight for an APBT), and was a working dog that technically no longer exists. It was also the father of the modern-day English Bulldog, which is derived from a cross-breed of the old English bulldog and the Pug, and further bred for certain aesthetic elements, resulting in today’s rather unhealthy breed. Its ancestor, on the other hand, was a very powerful, agile, working dog.

The old bulldog breed was named after a sport that placed the breed in high demand: bull-baiting, a sport later outlawed. Mind you, it was also used for other working tasks of the era, to include pulling loads, working cattle, and other farmhouse activities. Nonetheless, the popularity of bull-baiting made the old English bulldog a popular breed, and it is said that the breed was derived of smaller mastiff stock, later bred with greyhounds to increase agility.

The sport of bull-baiting required two important factors, which remain with modern-day APBTs and many “pitbull” breeds. Firstly, strong jaws were required in order for the dog to grab ahold of a bull’s snout and hold on despite any movement by the bull. It is important to distinguish strong jaws and the behavior to hold on at all costs with “lock-jaw,” however, which is a myth. Where the myth of “lock-jaw” originated, we don’t know, but there is no physical mechanism for a dog to “lock” its jaws in a bite. In fact, “pitbulls” don’t have exceptionally stronger bite strength than other dogs, but merely retain the knack of holding onto a target. Most other breeds, when confronted, have a tendency to snap, gnash, slash, and tear. Secondly, “gameness” was required to confront an enormous, bucking bull. This fierce courage would become an important trait for a bulldog’s success in the “pit.” Note that the “pit” in “pitbull” refers to a hole that the bull, and bulldog, were placed into for bull-baiting. It does not refer to a dogfighting pit.

When bull-baiting was banned in 1835 by British Parliament, the bulldog’s popularity declined. Around that time, dog-fighting began to rise in popularity, and it was then that the bulldog was bred with trace amounts of old English terrier in order to increase the breed’s agility. These terriers, too, were known for their gameness. The resulting breed, still quite similar to the bulldog of old, became known in the US as the APBT, while in England, it was named the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. By the 1960s, dog-fighting was banned in most US States, with the last State signing off on the ban in 1976.

The American Staffordshire Terrier is of the same stock as the APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, only bred further for the show ring (and to distance the breed from dog-fighting). The APBT and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, meanwhile, remained working dogs. While they were favored by dog-fighters, they were still used for a variety of working purposes, much like their bulldog ancestors. In fact, so respected were these dogs, that the US adopted the APBT to symbolize America: friendly, courageous, hard-working, and loyal. Indeed, the APBT was considered such a good family dog, and so good with children, than it was referred to as the “nanny dog.” The dog in The Little Rascals: yeah, it was an APBT.

How was the APBT’s reputation not marred back then, despite dog-fighting still being legal in the United States? One reason is simple: traditional dog-fighting did not tolerate human-aggression. In a typical dog-fighting ring, not only were there two dogs, but there were at least two people inside the ring as well, constantly re-positioning their respective dog’s bites for scoring purposes. With human hands in such close contact with fighting dogs, mid-fight, signs of human aggression were not tolerated. If such aggression materialized, the dogs would immediately be put down. Thus, the only fighting dogs that were further bred were those without any signs of human aggression. So it was no mystery that these same dogs, fierce in the ring against other dogs, would be very good household companions. After the ban on dog-fighting was put in place, dog-fighting naturally declined. Most APBTs involved in the sport were re-integrated in the general house-pet populace, along with their non-fighting APBT brothers, and their American Staffordshire Terrier cousins. Since, the APBT has continued to excel as a working and family dog.

Today, dog-fighting lives on, primarily in low-income, high-crime areas. Dog-fighting is linked to the drug trade and violent gangs, and it’s no surprise that most dogs used in the ring for this purpose lead pretty awful lives, not just when they fight, but in their daily lives as well. They are generally uncared for, malnourished, and never properly socialized or trained. Sadly, APBTs are often still favored for the sport, because what made them great at bull-baiting, and in the dog-fighting of earlier days, also make them great at dog-fighting today: their bite-and-hold, gameness, strength, and agility.

Regarding aggression.

Sites like dogsbite.org suggest that “pitbulls” are dangerous, but in actuality, sites like dogsbite.org lie. In this case, it’s a matter of the site owner having been attacked in the past, and now going on a rampage against “pitbulls” out of ignorance. Truth is, the “facts/conclusions” on those sites are made up, and not actually supported by purposeful studies, if any real studies whatsoever.

Based on the history above, there’s an obvious correlation between dog-fighting and APBTs, even though it’s not what APBTs were specifically bred for. Moreover, other dog breeds were used in dog-fighting too. However, the APBT’s traits have made them a choice breed for the bloodsport, in much the same way the breed excels at other working tasks: the “Superdog” title is used to describe any dog that has earned UKC titles in four areas open to all breeds, namely conformation, agility, weight pull, and obedience. Twenty of 47 Superdogs have been APBTs, and nine others Staffordshire Bull Terriers. That means over half of all Superdogs are of the same bulldog/terrier stock, illustrating just how intelligent, athletic, and flexible these dogs are. Similarly, three out of nine UKC Ultradogs were APBTs.

But back to aggression, the CDC’s Dog Bite Fact Sheet draws no conclusions based on breed.

A CDC study on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years… It does not identify specific breeds that are most likely to bite or kill, and thus is not appropriate for policy-making decisions related to the topic… There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) concurs. For a longer read, The Pit Bull Placebo has additional facts supporting the CDC’s and ACMA’s claims.

Still, those who claim that the APBT is aggressive relies on the APBT’s dog-fighting past. But as the KC Dog Blog points out, it’s been over 70 years since the American Staffordshire Terrier was formalized, and with most State bans against dog-fighting being enacted in the 1860s, one can reasonably argue that there have been at least seven generations of dogs that were not bred for the ring, so even if a genetic disposition for canine aggression existed, it likely wouldn’t exist today.

And even if such a genetic disposition were scientifically proven to exist in most APBTs today (it hasn’t), it still wouldn’t indicate any level of human aggression, and if anything, would likely debunk any claims of human aggression at all, considering that the very practice of dog-fighting would have increased canine aggression at the expense of human aggression.

So then why does the media focus so highly on “pitbulls”? Well, for one, the media doesn’t care about the truth: sensational headlines sell papers. And really, if the average person can’t differentiate between breeds, what makes anyone think that a journalist can? In fact, DNA testing of dog breeds suggests that visual breed identification is only about 12% accurate. That’s why most shelters refer to any medium-to-large size, black dog as a “black lab mix,” and why “shepherd” mixes are unusually common. The reality is that aesthetic breed-specific traits are notoriously difficult to identify visually, which is why the media lumps so many breeds into the “pitbull” category, despite the fact that many “pitbull” dogs demonized aren’t even of the same bloodhound/terrier stock. This, of course, brings us again to the 100+lb “pitbull” stories, which are in all likelihod mastiff mixes, else dogs from “backyard breeders” who have spent years developing ill-tempered, unhealthy breeds for certain aesthetic characteristics (i.e. low, stocky build, bent-out shoulders, etc). For those who do argue genetics, note that most of these larger “pitbulls” were bred with mastiffs, which were not bread for any human bite-inhibition.

Don’t blame the breed.

The media isn’t just wrong to demonize based on breed, it’s wrong for forgetting what real investigative journalism is. If visual identification of breeds doesn’t work, then why not look for facts that do correlate between dog attacks? The recent killing of a two-year-old girl in Virginia has elements common to similar news stories.

1. The dog was a “resident” dog, not a family dog. In other words, it was not part of the family routine, but instead left outside and not fully integrated into the family.
2. The dog was chained up. This is generally considered a poor way to restrain a dog, is unhealthy, and yet by many dog-fighters, is considered good practice to toughen up a dog and build strength.
3. The neighborhood the incident took place in was below the poverty line, suggesting that the family likely lacked the education, and means, to raise a dog properly. In fact, the dog was probably malnourished, and was probably not routinely taken to the vet, either.
4. The family was obviously negligent. If a two-year old child can wander outside on its own and escape it’s mother’s watch, then imagine what little care the family had for the dog in the first place.
5. Given the family’s financial situation, it’s highly unlikely that there were any lineage papers for the dog, so there’s absolutely no evidence of breed identification in this case, bringing us back to the limitations of visual breed assessment. For all we know, especially since there are no pictures of the dog readily available on any site reporting the attack, the dog was a chihuahua. Aside from the dog’s age, was there anything descriptive about the dog noted, other than that neighbors (who were similarly ignorant) referred to the dog as a “pitbull”?

What all of this comes down to, like many other things, is education. If we had our way, we’d require any potential dog-owners to acquire a license before adopting a dog, to prove that they have the means, and education, to properly care for their pet. (Indeed, this should probably be extended to children also, but let’s discuss one thing at a time.) With no desire to truly incorporate a dog into one’s family dynamic, and no plans to properly train and care for a pet, one does everyone a disservice, and it’s no surprise that a child has died from these circumstances. While the investigation into this last specific case is still ongoing, I wouldn’t hesitate to pass a good chunck of the blame onto the parents here, and file criminal charges against them.

In any case, let’s stop with the stereotypes: with experts concluding that there’s no evidence to justify breed specific legislation, let’s end the “pitbull” hate.

Similar Posts:

• Overcoming Apple TV’s file-type limitations. – We really want to like the new Apple TV. For one, it’s cheap for a media center at only $100. Two, i…
• The Gracie let-down. – I meant to post sooner about last Saturday’s long-awaited showdown between Matt Hughes and Royce Gra…
• Hillary not a gamer. – When Hillary Clinton was elected U.S. Senator out of lovely New York, I got the hell out of Dodge. I…

When we began mendax.org in 1996, we had reasonably concrete aims for the site, but as with all things, situations change and end-goals shift accordingly. Where mendax.org was launched as the public face of a multi-person operation, we’ve been in a very different place for years, with content now produced almost exclusively by one author. This is especially true with today’s ease at placing online a personal vanity blog, making the undertaking of an e-zine, as in mendax.org’s original vision, a somewhat moot point; many earlier contributors have gone their own ways to launch their own sites, and as a part-time endeavor without the resources to launch in the “pro” blogging space, mendax.org has become a reflection of the thoughts and interests of its one-man post-writing machine team.

Yet still, we’ve had clear goals for mendax.org’s evolution, which we hoped to roll out in stages throughout 2009. Steering these ideas in the right direction, time considered, has still been a heavy task, however. This lack of time, compounded with the realization that we have other ventures we’d like to put a stake into, has made us realize that letting mendax.org continue on its enormously slow path to becoming what we intend it to become, however creative that product may be, is almost a moot endeavor. Why half-ass a project for years when we can reduce our goals considerably for a passing product now?

In other words, we’ve pretty much decided that we’re not going to keep pushing mendax.org on the direction we hoped to take it, and are instead leaving it where it is. That’s because looking at the state of the site, we see a decent personal blog and little else. Why mess with that, if we’d rather expend our energies on new projects, while leaving mendax.org in a relatively happy state?

To this end, readers will see some subtle changes at mendax.org to reflect its un-new direction. For most, the upcoming changes will barely be noticed, especially in regards to content and frequency of posts. In a nutshell, mendax.org’s purpose, if such a thing is notable, has merely been redefined on the author’s end. And that purpose, as we move forward, will be to continue with the same level of content from the clearly-stated perspective of the one-man writing team that’s kept mendax.org afloat for some time now. And what’s why as time goes on, even with “mendax.org” remaining as a legacy foundation, the site will probably, one day, be referred to only as the website of WyldKard.

Similar Posts:

• Where mendax.org went. – Repeat visitors to the site will have noticed some changes, yet we’ve failed to offer a public expla…
• Daemon re-hosted. – One of the first hosted files on mendax.org was Daemon, a public-domain sourcebook for White Wolf’s …
• Scientology complaints backfire. – Hubbard’s famed church continues to complain about people linking to their copyrighted material onli…