XBOX Dumb Down June 12, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Gaming , add a commentFor many years my PC/Playstation combo was a cornucopia of digital fun. When I wanted complex strategy I could go on the PC, if I wanted mindless arcade fun I would jump into the Playstation. Neither platform attempted to be the other and each held their own ground and so it was a perfect symbiotic relationship for me. I kept all my GTA playing to the PS2 and all my Strategy and FPS gaming on the PC, that was before my girlfriend bought me a XBOX as a birthday present. Now my gaming life is in confusion and I shall explain why.
The first thing is fairly simple and that is that many games for the XBOX are also on the PC. The choice in this case is very simple. If its an FPS go to the PC if it is a Strategy goto the PC if it is 3rd person or driving stick with the Xbox. Its a rule worth following if you have a decent PC.
This rule however is becoming more difficult to enforce and my choices are getting harder to make due to an alarming trend I have noticed on the XBOX. For example:
for the XBOX is a strange beast. Based upon the popular Battlefield series it is like an alternate universe version of Battlefield 2. It has deformable/destructible environment which seems great, loads of vehicles and game modes as well as pretty large mix of weaponry. But it feels ‘dumbed down’ a simpler approach with thicker physics, some semi-locking shooting, overpowered snipers, graphics look like someone made a pretty horrible cake but dressed it up very well. They look a little weird, sometimes great (when there is action) then pretty plain and dull (when nothing is going on). The helis feel like bricks, the landscape is quite a weird scale and doesn’t feel particularly large, its like a cartoon version. It is however still a very good game and on live with a team definitely more coordinated and tactical than BF2.
Another game that has got the dumb down features. Simply put on the console version there is no lean or prone position, which for me, is an essential part of the game. Sheer butchery to a fine (but overrated) game.
Take CIV 4, create a smaller map, remove many of the features, add incredibly annoying avatars, simplify resource management and speed the game up. Civilisation Revolution another dumbed down PC game. One I think I may enjoy, again in secret.
This has been the only game I have purchased on Live and what a disappointment. Most of the weapons from the PC game have disappeared. No level creation options, no start position options (massive flaw) or any options that really vary the game. The explosions, I think, do not look as good as my old Amiga Version and that was 13 years ago. This like many other games on the XBOX is another butchered version of a great game.
Yep, I had to do this game as well I’m afraid. One of the major reasons for getting the XBOX was GTAIV. So after completing the game and playing multi-player; is this a new bright future for this franchise? or a cerebral assault of pointless dumbing down? Well a little of both.
I can sum up GTA IV very quickly, it is a superb graphic engine. The cars look incredible, the peds look great, the action on the whole is very smooth. Dynamic damage on the cars is wonderful and their handling feels superb.
But, there is so much missing, so many little side missions, quirks, humour, creativity of missions, alternative things to do, no businesses, no little hidden things, crazy stunts (yeah crazy not dull little ramps). By taking itself too seriously its also lost a lot of heart, and even though as a multi player I think its fantastic fun (apart from the appalling racism on live), the single player feels…. empty… and the narrative makes you feel empty as well with both endings being fairly depressing.
GTAIV like many other games coming out on consoles and particularly the XBOX are now trying to produce streamlined games. Games that are fast, easy to get back into, quick to reward and hold little punishment for failure. The amount of cut scenes on GTAIV makes me think that they want us to play an interactive film rather than play a truly dynamic game in an interesting gaming Universe. Sophistication is NOT in fashion, mass appeal (sales) and simplification seem to be order of the day on consoles leaving many console gamers feeling like they have been persistently patronised.
One last note, Battlefield and GTAIV have both ditched parachutes. I love parachutes and I’m not happy but it does cause a lot of problems balance wise in BF games.
Ignorance Breeds Disease - The Hybrid Embryo Debate May 19, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Philosophy, Science, Technology , add a comment
I have been shocked by the backlash by ‘ethical’ and ‘religious’ pundits to the Hybrid Embryo research who’s fate is currently being determined in the House of Commons. Simply put, the research is to examine degenerative diseases and requires the combination of human and animal cells mixed within embryonic stem cells. These embryos will not become mature or allowed to develop within a long time frame. Much like stem cell research the embryos are no more than simple cells where the genetic changes can be closely examined to help fight diseases such as Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s.
The general argument from the clergy and from ethical zealots is that we are ‘tampering with nature’. An example of many of these ill-informed opinions I think is summed up in this truly dangerous knee-jerk reaction from people such as Rebecca Bradbury from Exeter who says on BBC have your say:
This has just confirmed my fears…humans have become so arrogant that they are playing God. We have diseases for a reason; to stop the population becoming so large the earth can not sustain the numbers. I can not see any good reason why hybrid embryos are created in the first place, it is leaving the door open for the unscrupulous to exploit and potentially cause irrevocable damage to the human race. When are scientists and the government just going to leave nature alone?
This is a perfect example of the twisted mirror that the anti-science conservatist lobby adopts as an argument against scientific progress. So lets look at what Rebecca actually states:
1. Humans play god.
Now I’m not sure that Rebecca has quite grasped the idea that it is surely pure arrogance to assume that she knows these seemingly invisible barriers that mankind should not cross. What exactly determines when man becomes ‘arrogant’ or attempts to become what she considers ‘god’. She obviously knows the limit that we should not cross and this is it. Hardly an arrogant assumption is it?
2. Diseases for a Reason and Natural Balance
Diseases have no reason. They exist due to a number of environmental and genetic factors. The human race has successful rid ourselves of a huge swathe of diseases over the last 100 years and we will continue to do so as long as people suffer with terrible afflictions.
The Earth with science is quite capable of supporting many more multitudes of people as long as we are careful not to ruin our habitat beyond a livable threshold. There is NO ‘natural balance’ in nature. Nature represents a constantly shifting, changing and developing system that may accommodate humanity or not. Science generally tips the balance in our favour and it is politics, money and greed that drive science into becoming a destructive force, not science itself. Maybe Rebecca would like to return to the more ‘natural’ Medieval period where peoples lives were incredibly short, hard and disease ridden?
3. No reason for research.
Often people who punt the ‘no reason’ argument have not informed themselves of the very research they are witch hunting. If Rebecca had bothered to read the papers she would realise that this research is to investigate whether particularly awful diseases can be cured. Simple. She even acknowledges this in her previous sentence.
4. Unscrupulous Use.
Now this is when the arguments against research become simply absurd. What do people think will happen, clones of hybrid humans and tigers roaming around killing people? Nazi style camps holding mutants that will need to be contained as the human race plummets into some zombie style survival episode? What exactly is this ‘damage’? Again another loaded sentence full of hyperbole.
5. Leave Nature Alone.
If we had adopted this idea we would never have developed civilisation or risen above our competitors to carve out our niche within what is an intensely hostile environment. Real survival which many of us do not have to face on a day to day basis is not a pleasant experience. Starvation, disease, short brutal lives with no justice system, no government, no sanitation, no food stocks, no culture and no survival. If we left nature alone this is exactly the world we would be living in, no future, no hope, no progress. The human race would indeed be short lived and Rebecca would not have the privilege to assault intelligent minds with such banality.
Domain Names - Empty Home Syndrome May 15, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Technology, Web , add a comment
Nothing annoys me more than finding a good domain name that someone has purchased with the intention of either selling it on or doing absolutely nothing with it. Bulk domain name buying has been around since DNS was setup but what really irritates me is that there are millions of domains that sit doing absolutely nothing apart from supplying free adverts for the hosting company. I lost a domain I wasn’t concerned about recently only to see it instantly purchased and yep, a buy this domain page put on it. I have no intention of buying it back but I reckon it was purchased on the basis that I had forgotten to renew it and so the buyer was hoping I would desperately contact them to re-purchase or lease it back. Services such as MetaFusion.com are setup for bulk purchases of domains and users then try and sell or lease them on. A domain is only a small part of a successful online presence and certainly not worth the money some of these free-loaders try and charge.
I’ve seen many companies who have tried to trade domains go out of business pretty quickly as it relies on someone truly, desperately, needing that domain. Of course if you are trademarked you could make a claim for the domain but this is often an expensive and pointless exercise.
I suggest that if a web site does not have content, or its content is not relevant or is purposefully purely a pointless advert page that there should be a process to remove ownership and release the domain for a real use. This would certainly cut down on 90% of ‘Empty Home’ domains.
The Great Razorblade Swindle January 17, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog , 1 comment so far
Do you wet shave? Have you noticed how quickly you seem to get through your rather expensive razor blades. In fact, if you thought about the reason you have binned many a blade, you might have realised it wasn’t because it had become dulled, but more likely because hair had clogged up between the blades.
I have now realised that Men’s premium razor blades (whether double or triple or quad) do not have enough space between the blades to allow hair to freely fall through when washing them out. The space is so small that very quickly the blade is clogged and is thrown into the bin. Men may be a bit stupid this way, but women certainly are not and companies such as Gillette know it.
That’s why I suggest you use a 
woman’s leg shaver for your chin. I currently use the Gillette Venus and it does a perfect job. You may even be able to see the distance between the blades is wider in these two images. The blade lasts for ages and I get a really good shave every time. Don’t be perturbed either by the fact that your razor isn’t the throbbing gristle power saw that swooshes around on the Gillette adverts. It might be powder pink or come in flowery packaging but you will never look back after the decent shave and blade lifecycle you get from a Venus.
The Hounds of the Dyke January 9, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Brighton, Science , 3 comments
Comet Holmes was a pretty understated but important example of how we are surrounded by a huge variety of stellar objects. Expanding to become the largest object in our solar system whatever happened to this comet must have been pretty dramatic.
Knowing that Comet Holmes was visible to the naked eye myself and some friends decided to go out on the Downs to do some star gazing. We found a great spot in a car park near Devils Dyke and started setting up. A couple of dubious cars were already lurking and we guessed this must be a dogging spot. When two women and three men got out of the car, the lonely sexual desperados must have thought their luck was in. As I got out my tripod they must have really got excited at the kinky potential of what we could all be doing. Unfortunately this must have been shattered when I setup my astronomical binoculars; and tea, biscuits and a hip flask of lovely whisky were passed around.
One of the doggers immediately left in obvious disgust, then after about ten minutes the final car departed but what was truly astonishing was that as the last car past us a bloke leaned out and shouted “GET A LIFE”. After an ironic chuckle, we continued to waste our lives looking at the infinite wonders of the Universe rather than participating in the fulfilling act of sticking our cocks through car windows.
Richard Dawkins - A fundemental rationaliser. October 15, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Philosophy, Science , 3 commentsI have struck this article off as I think it is not factually correct and was a bit of a rant, however, there are points relevant to my overriding uncomfortableness with RD’s current PR approach.
Like Richard Dawkins, I am myself an atheist, that is, I do not believe that divine beings exist, let alone influence our lives. I have been fascinated to see the rise of Richard Dawkins over the years and have been a fan of his approach and work until the last couple of years. There is no doubt that this known but hardly celebrity level academic has suddenly exploded into the public eye through a number of TV programmes and of course through the controversial book ‘The God Delusion’. With the establishment of the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Reason and Science (RDF), he is now the figurehead of a movement to rid the world of the superstitious and ignorant views of religious zealots and lazy thinkers.
Richard has questioned representatives of most faiths and has exposed clairvoyants and spiritualist charlatans for what they are, and although his arguments are solid and completely rational, I wonder what his objectives really are? Let us not forget Richards background. He is from a privileged landed gentry background and certainly represents the intellectual elite in our country. From the lofty heights of academic supremacy there is no doubt he can look down upon the teeming masses, scrutinize their illogical actions and dissect them into a palatable example of how ignorant many people truly are. Ignorance is often the result of poor education/cultural influences and is also the result of choosing to be ignorant as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional trauma. An erudite and accomplished academic will find it incredibly easy to overturn most orthodox religious assumptions as well as dissect the fickle modern interpretations that seem to constantly evolve to cope with modern changes. Yet, within the madness are reasons however banal or poignant. The reasons why people choose irrationality over reason is often due to a survival or coping mechanism. Dealing with the death of close relative or adapting to a harsh theocratic dictatorship. This is obvious, but what may not be so obvious is that poverty plays a massive role in the establishment of the uneducated, traumatised and terrible life experiences that people have to deal with. The disparity between rich and poor is extreme and I will not venture to explain what most people know to be the truth.
This is where my admiration of Richard Dawkins starts to curdle as I watch him simply argue in a rather self-satisfied way that rationalism and scientific methodology can give wonder and hope to everyone in the same way that is does to him and no doubt as it does to myself. The truth is that atheism is a luxury, something to treasure and respect. It is predominately found in rich liberal western societies and has no doubt freed many people from the constrains of dogma and superstition. I argue as much as Dawkins against supposition and assumptions believing in a Socratic method to weed out untruths and delusion. Yet, like Socrates, I believe that personal development should over-ride financial aspirations, something I’m not convinced Richard Dawkins completely agrees with, especially with BUY NOW buttons plastered all over his website. As much as Dawkins seems to understand rationality he seems to be incapable of understanding the importance of self-delusion. There is no doubt that lying is fundamentally important to every-one’s sanity and forms a fundamental part of our creative and imaginative tapestry as a species. Embellishments, exaggerations, and lies are creative processes and no doubt form a hugely important part of every day lives. From fiction books to films, urban myths to legends their prevalence and importance cannot be understated. We all allow ourselves these escapes, yet it is most evident in areas where poverty stricken people live life in a way most westerners would find intolerable. It is here Dawkins fails to deliver a fair case for an idealised secular world through evangelised atheism. To truly enlighten the ignorant he needs to tackle its main cause, poverty. It is this irony that strikes at the heart of Dawkins argument. How can a man of so much privilege and obvious intelligence fail to recognise that the very wealth and liberality that allows him his freedom to study, scrutinize and communicate his ideas is formed directly from the capital which drives these people into poverty and ignorance. Dawkins is a perfect example of a bourgeois, intellectual bully boy.
To sustain my interest I would like to see him become a braver man and address the socio-political reasons why people turn to religion or fundamentalism. I know empirical data to Dawkins may just seem like filler in an already won argument but I think that Dawkins needs to challenge his own cultural inheritance and its contribution to keeping the plebians ignorant. Understanding and facing the reality of poverty and the inevitable poor educational standards this creates should be his priority now and would certainly give him far more credibility than slamming average Joes who never had the chances he had. Dawkins should be addressing why people turn to religion and supernatural beliefs rather than proceeding to duck shoot the ignorant.
Turbo Whistler October 14, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Brighton , 3 comments
Every morning at about 8.30am a car steams past my window making this awful sound that is obviously trying to sound like a blow-off valve on a high performance car. The thing is the car is a 1990-ish Toyota ‘crap’ model. It would never have had turbo or sports gears. When this thing drives past it sounds like someone has just let the pressure valve off a steam engine. A farty pfffffffffffffffffff sound on gear changing cannot be something serious car modder could truly want.
Well I found the culprit.
http://www.makesyouthink.com/turbosound/
Now if it was a novelty 80’s horn at least it has some entertainment value.
Porky Whites Taste Nice July 12, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog , 1 comment so far
The British Banger has gone through many changes over the years. The rusk filled, mechanically extracted meat of the sausage in the 70’s which are still the mainstay of most cheap sausages nowadays have been ‘poshed’ up. Now you have the main supermarket chains supplying pork, apple and leek sausages, redwine and onion sausages, chilli sausages and so forth. Many of these ‘posh’ sausages I find rather coarse with nasty chunks of gristle and many unseemly tubular things that make me feel rather queazy on closer inspection. Yes, they may have minimal rusk but I still think the meat quality is pretty poor and ‘posh’ sausages are far from the authentic ‘rustic’ image the supermarkets try and present. I’d rather have a Walls or Jameson sausages.
Being rather despondent about the sausage situation while on a rare visit to ASDA (as im more of a Sainsburys person) there was a stall with suasages being cooked on it with the usual cocktail stick thing going on. Over I went and scoffed down three samples then stopped. Rather than ignore the guy who was rambling on about the sausages I started to listen. The reaon I started to listen was the the sausage was bloody nice. In fact, it was the best british sausage I have ever tasted. Even though I listened I have forgot most of what he said but I’m sure it was something like “it’s 90% pork from organic pigs that have their hooves massaged daily and are fed on veal and fine wine…”. I quickly purchased 2 packs and ate sausages most of the week. They are absolutely perfect sausages, no coarsness, spicy but delicate seasoning and a feeling that you really have just eaten the banger at the beginning of Grange Hill, which, for me, sums up the character of the banger perfectly.
Null:Void and the Temporal Brain February 25, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Philosophy , add a comment
Null:Void and the Temporal Brain
I have for a while been pondering over the various philosophical, metaphysical and sociological questions that we all face about the actual substance of our life experience. I have a couple of theories that are personal conjecture and not academically qualified in any way, but which I think still require a certain degree of examination.
Introduction
Firstly I have been examining the nature of non-existence in both pre-life and post-life. There is a general assumption within most religious ideas, that once a person has existed this somehow qualifies them as already obtaining some kind of permanent immortality (soul). I have made an assumption in my theory that the pre-life (null) and post-life (void) are one of the same thing. They are states of non-consciousness, completely blank and devoid of any direct observation or measurement. This may seem like a sweeping assumption but one can suggest that if we have made no scientifically tested communication with both pre-lives (people yet to exist) or post-lives (people who are now dead) that these states are somehow separated from our conscious stream. There is no doubt that these pre- and post- lives have an effect which can be seen in our need to celebrate and study post-lives (history) and also the way we consider the future or pre-lives, however, this impact is formed by our own needs and perceptions and not by those consciences directly.
Null:Void
The null:void represents the non-existence of our consciousness. Before we were born we were not aware of anything; and I suggest that this is same state that occurs post-life. We did not experience the passing millennia that led to the events that created our awareness neither will we experience the infinity that will pass once we are dead. These states of non-consciousness the Null:Void are both exactly analogous and for the sake of my argument will be assumed to be so throughout this piece.
As we can never experience a non-conscious state or the Null:Void it would seem to make sense that we will never cease to be conscious.
Due to our inability to experience anything other than consciousness, we are, in effect, bound to our consciousness in such a way that the passing of infinity before and after our existence will be instantaneous to us. If this is true one can assume that we will never experience post-life as we did not experience pre-life. Both states only serve to create the infinity of probabilities until such time as we are conscious again. Does this sound like solipsism? Potentially to some, but yet there is a logical process in these assumptions and a fair argument to make for this interpretation of the Null:Void states.
I agree that none of us fully understand what realms our consciousness could potentially pervade and there is much discussion about the quantum relationship between our consciousness and its physical/quantum environment. However in practicable terms there is currently no evidence to suggest direct interference from pre-/-post lives, or in other terms from Null:Void states of consciousness.
So what does this mean?
My argument is simple, you have never been in a Null:Void state. Neither will you ever be in a Null:Void state and be aware of it. There is no cross over between Null:Void states and our own consciousness. This being so, I am not automatically suggesting that when you die you will suddenly open your eyes and exist again. There is the potential for you to be reconstructed but this starts entering the realms of science fiction. If we are to assume that this is effectively your ‘lot’ then what is the point of Null:Void theory if it offers nothing but the affirmation of non-existence.
I suggest that the Null:Void state confirms the perpetuation of our consciousness by our inability not to be conscious. In this I find a compelling argument, whether it is true is maybe not as important as the impact this has on our lives in ways, maybe, we had never realised. Maybe this simple assumption has been ingrained into us and forms a formative part of our psyche from which has spawned much of our social, mythological and religious narrative.
Maybe this idea drives us all in a subtle way. It may also actually embody our relationship with death and our dreams of immortality. Most if not all religion suggests eternal life, this may not be so stupid if you take into account the Null:Void argument. I am not in any way condoning the use of un-substantiated claims of ‘God’ or miracles and so forth, but I am examining the reason why in all of these religions that there is an assumption of life after death. If you take the Null:Void theory as a metaphysical conundrum, this could well be the premise by which we all consciously or sub-consciously find our own deaths incomprehensible.
The Temporal Brain
The brain has been interpreted as being an organ that either:
a) Encapsulates our consciousness and connects it with our external reality.
Or
b) Connects our consciousness with our external reality.
The first assumption is often purported by more scientific reasoning while the second is common in religious thinking.
We know that the world that surrounds us is certainly not as we ‘see’ it. It is a construction that our brain creates for us to relate and interact to external events. Our sight is not created by the eye itself but the visual stimulus the eye transmits through electrical activity to the brain which is then processed and our ‘sight’ is formed around very particular rules. (See more info). It is limited, can be fooled, and is certainly a representation of our surroundings.
I am not seeking to answer whether the brain is either argument a) or b) but it is fair to suggest that in both arguments the focus on the ‘location’ of consciousness seems to be the overriding difference.
This ‘location’ is often a key debate for philosophical thought and theological writings as well as scientific experimentation (albeit limited). Let us assume it could be either, but also consider that the brain interprets time much in the same way as the eye interprets photonic activity. Key to the interpretation of every external stimulus is a metric to put experiences into some context. This temporal ‘experience’ is often wrongly or rightly interpreted as a stream. We know now that this may not be the case and in effect our entire life existence is in one ‘slice’ of reality which is a solid state or in other terms a complete unit of conscious experience. Much like representations the eye transmits to the brain, the interpretation of the temporal may very well be constructed by our brains as a constant stream with one moment moving to the next, but this may not be the true nature of our temporal existence.
If our interpretation of time then is not an irrefutable passing from one moment to another (or stream), if this interpretation is as synthetic as our brain reconstructing visual information, then the relationship between our consciousness, time and the null:void may, in fact, be far more complex that previously assumed.
The brain has the ability to model and predict. This is true in all of us. This is based on previous experience and due to complex genetic and chemical interactions with the body. The interpretation of time as a temporal flow, we will assume, is just that, an interpretation. This interpretation enables us to use specific points of reference to construct the probable outcome of actions. This construction of probable outcomes is such an an intrinsic part of our contextualisation of experience that it forms a fundamental aspect of our interpretation of reality.
These points of reference may not come necessarily from just our experience or chemical interactions, but may be formed by the nature of the experiences themselves. When we reduce down these points of reference to choices we could granulise them into an almost infinite amount of sub-atomic interactions/choices, yet we contextualise by simplifying the experience into an essential selection of choices. Either way it is the same process. The choices that we do not make or consider could be considered Null:Void outcomes. Choices that never existed as a reality; choices that have no impact on our situation once the choice is made. Yet this non-existent choice formed an essential part of the decision making process. Its un-experiencable reality that we modeled the outcomes from to justify our final choice. In a sense the brain creates outcomes, models realities, sifts through potentials and finalises an action. It is an incredible temporal machine, a multi-versal mechanism of probability reasoning. I might go so far as to say it creates ‘Time’ experience as a mechanism for choices that initially appear from a Null:Void state. It selects preferable realities, moulds our path through the temporal maze and may in some way connect with these Null:Void potentials albeit in a completely instinctual way to contextualise the usefulness of including an alternative choice.
The Null:Void may not be the absence of consciousness but the potential for its existence. Our consciousness changes from one moment to the next and the choices that form these changes are contextualised within the relationship between ourselves and the Null:Void.
I hope you have found my discussion at the very least entertaining. I believe that our social experience and our perceptions of reality are somehow connected to some kind of basic inherent awareness of the state of our existence. However mis-guided (religion and science) our conclusions are, there are fundamental universal reasons why we have ideas, stories, imagination, creativity and the ability to attempt to apply them, whether as an individual or as an institution. The romantic side would suggest that our thoughts are somewhere real and their potential is realised in someway in the Null:Void.
Maybe the Null:Void is the other multiverses that surround our own or the various dimensions where these conscious models form and interact with our own Universe. Maybe not. Whatever the case, the brain could well have some special property that enables it to connect with the quantum and temporal levels of our reality in ways that we never realised possible.
I acknowledge this is by no means a scientific or referenced piece, although many of the ideas involved are discussed in:
David Deutch
ttp://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html
Philosophy of Physics
Kronz, Frederick M.
Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
Douglas R. Hofstadter
Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See
Donald David Hoffman
Downs Walk January 23, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog , add a commentWhen you think of the Downs you often think of rolling hills, green expanses and chalky slopes. However from the many pictures we took on our walk from Devils Dike to Beading there were some unexpected visual treats. Many of which seemed distinctly un-downslike when you look back on the picture. Rusty barbed wire piled up, fir trees and booster poles made some interesting subjects.
One thing I noticed was the amount of flooding around (Upper?) Beading, maybe a sign of things to come. 
