For someone as steeped in network techology as I am, you may be surprised to learn that I’m vehemently against the idea of telecommuting, or any other form of working from home.

While on the surface, it may seem convenient for an employee to work from home (due to inclement weather, illness, etc.), you’re actually losing money when you telecommute! Take a look at the facts. When you go to work, your employer pays for the electricity, phone, water, heat, and so on. If you’re working from home, you are paying for all of the utility bills; your employer’s not compensating you for them.

Financial considerations aside, there’s a much bigger reason why I don’t believe in working from home. For me, work is work: when I’m in my office, I’m there to work, not relax or fool around. When I go home, I leave work behind, forget about it until the next morning, and enjoy my hobbies. If you’re working from home…then you no longer have a home. You have another office. Your time is now your employer’s time, your space is now their space. There’s no separation of home and work anymore, as they’ve become one and the same. While one may pride themselves on their home, if you’re telecommuting, tough shit: you’re firmly planted in your employer’s domain, no matter where your physical location may be.

I speak from personal experience; shortly after college many long years ago, I worked on various freelance projects to pay the bills until I acquired a full-time position. My bedroom became my office (as that’s where the computer was), and in the span of a few short months, I felt like I had to nowhere to go to unwind. The bedroom was where I did nothing but work and sleep. Even if I went into the other room to watch TV or read a book, it didn’t really matter, as my office was right next door. (Would you loiter around your job during off hours? I don’t think so!)

As such, I maintain a sharp divide between the office and my home: they are never to mix. The whole point of going home is to relax after a long day at work! If you prefer to telecommute, then why not just move into your company’s office and sleep on a cot? You’d save money that way.

As I had mentioned in my “Give Dragon Quest a chance” post a while back, there’s been a growing backlash against Japanese video games and developers over the past few years. Part of this may simply be due to cultural differences, and I suppose that’s completely understandable; not everyone’s going to enjoy an RPG steeped in Japanese folklore. What’s unacceptable is the borderline nationalist attitudes that have been rising within the video game sphere.

We know that American gamers in general prefer first-person shooters and other violent action games. Those genres aren’t big in Japan. But if we look to the past, the Nintendo, Sega, and Sony consoles of yore were super-popular in America, and multiple genres of games enjoyed plenty of popularity, like platformers, JRPGs, shoot-’em-ups, and arcade games. So what happened? Why the eventual shift towards only a few game types, while shunning the very games and developers that made the hobby’s continued success possible?

I’m not trying to say that Western developers aren’t creative or on par with their Japanese counterparts; far from it. I spent much of the 1990s playing PC games, and the amount of quality gaming to be had at that time was stunning. Even now, PC gaming has become an amazing place, primarily due to people’s use of the Internet to promote and distribute their games. On the console front, we’ve got some Western heavyweights, too; just look at developers like Valve, Criterion, and Media Molecule.

Nowadays, most American gamer hate is reserved for the Sony PlayStation 3 and the Nintendo Wii. While the former’s taken a while to secure its place in the gaming market, the latter’s been a runaway success from day one. The two platforms couldn’t be more different; yet American “hardcore” gamers see fit to bash them on a constant basis. These are generally gamers that grew up playing Nintendo consoles or the previous PlayStation systems, so the vitriol now sent their way doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Specific quirks about the consoles aside, I honestly think a big part of it is because they’re not American-made systems with an abundance of Western games.

A recent episode of Retronauts mentioned that “American gamers like American consoles.” Nowhere is that more evident than in the success of the Xbox 360; from any hardware reliability standpoint, it’s a piece of garbage with a colossal failure rate. Had a Japanese company tried a stunt like that, the machine would’ve been recalled and the company sued up the ass. The PlayStation 2 had some relatively minor disc-read error problems, which are not complete hardware failures, and Sony got sued for it! Yet, American gamers continually buy 360s, even though they’re practically guaranteed to break. Can you imagine if any other appliance behaved like that? No one’s going to buy the same TV multiple times if it breaks. The same goes for a goddamn coffee pot. That’s why I think there has to be some nationalism at work here; Microsoft’s an American company producing an American console (we’ll ignore the obvious fact that like other systems, the 360′s components are assembled overseas), their games cater to a very specific gamer demographic, and its rabid fans eat it up. Almost three years post-launch, the console still has severe hardware problems, but its users seem not to care. (That precedent doesn’t bode well for the hobby’s future.) In defense of the 360, many fans are quick to point out that it’s the game library that matters, not the hardware. In other words, the 360′s worth replacing time and time again, because the games are so good. Well, the aforementioned PS2 disc-read error case flushes that line of thought down the toilet. The PS2′s library is arguably one of the best of all time, but that didn’t stop a lawsuit.

Finally, every minor quirk with the 360′s competitors is viciously and brutally attacked. Even when the PlayStation Network (PSN) adds a new feature to compete with Xbox Live, Sony still gets sledgehammered by fans and the US gaming press! It’s practically become a no-win situation. Again, specifics may vary, but it looks like a lot of it boils down to the fact that Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies. Cripes, you’d think by some gamers’ rants that those two are trying to take over the USA! (Then again, maybe they’re right. Look at Pokémon.) Even developers have gotten in on the action; Valve’s Gabe Newell is notorious for bashing the PS3 as a “waste of time,” even though his company has never developed a PS3 game, and it’s rumored that Valve has never received a PS3 devkit! (Note: Newell is a former Microsoft employee. Coincidence? I doubt it.)

I know that not all gamers feel this way. But based on what I’ve seen on message boards, gaming blogs, and even news sites, it’s hard not to discern a pattern.

I’m as surprised and pleased as many other gamers with the continued popularity of Sony’s PlayStation 2. It’s about eight years old now, and there’s still great games being produced for the console. We haven’t seen this kind of popular support since the NES era!

In the face of this success, one big question remains: why the hell is the PS2 still $129.99?! Sony obviously wants to squeeze more money out of the aging system to compensate for the PlayStation 3′s early stumbles, but the PS2′s been at that price point for far too long. If they drop it to the magic $99.99 mark, I think it would fly off shelves even faster. The bundles they’re offering (like the LEGO® Batman one) are a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough; many consumers might just want to buy the system and whatever game they choose. Dropping the price by thirty beans would make that a hell of a lot easier.

We hear a lot of nonsense about this being the “HD era” and other such crap, but the continued success of the PS2 and the absolutely unprecedented success of the Nintendo Wii say otherwise. Sony always touts their “PlayStation Family,” but how about giving the patriarch of the group a bit of a break?

My roommate and I had a discussion a while back about how many employers will first perform a Google search on prospective employees’ names in order to find out more about them. While I can understand the reasoning behind this move — learning more about your future employee — what bugs me is the criteria some employers may use when deciding whether to hire.

For example, let’s say that a young woman is applying to be an accountant at a large insurance company. Her interview goes quite well, but later on, the interviewer later Googles her name and finds her MySpace page. There, the interviewer sees pictures of her, drink in hand, at a costume party. Now, the company doesn’t want to hire her anymore, due to her purported “drunken” behavior at said party.

This is preposterous, and a disgrace to any company which would employ such ridiculous tactics. The woman in question wasn’t drinking on the job; she was at a party. And just because you see someone with drink in hand, it doesn’t mean they’re loaded. Furthermore, even if she was intoxicated, as long as she’s twenty-one or older…that’s legal. But most importantly of all: what, exactly, does any of that have to do with her professional credentials or job performance? Answer: nothing. I can understand certain personal decorum being a factor in the case of a public relations position or a political appointment, but this doesn’t apply to 99% of the workforce.

And that, my friends, is the core of the problem. Employers shouldn’t be deciding upon employment based upon factors that have no connection to the job whatsoever! If that’s the case, then why bother even typing up a résumé? Or even better…why not just apply for any job, regardless of your “qualifications”? If one’s web presence or personal life are more important, then what’s the point of actual on-the-job skillsets?

It would be like me losing out on a job because of this blog. Absolutely ridiculous. Would you want to work at a place like that?

I really don’t. Maybe this proves that I’m completely disconnected from pop culture (which wouldn’t be a bad thing), but I’m sorry; he doesn’t amuse me at all. I didn’t find Arrested Development funny in the slightest, and in films like Superbad, Cera was the straight man to others’ antics. I realize that role’s importance in the realm of comedy, but I don’t think it makes him funny at all. Or take Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist; I’ve seen people laugh at loud at Cera’s lines in the trailers. Why? Why?! They’re not funny at all! I know taste is subjective, but come the fuck on. Cera seems to be a decent actor, but he’s not the “comic genius” that many make him out to be. (Not to mention the fact that he plays the same character in every film!) If he’s the future of comedy, then holy shit, the world’s going to become a decidedly unfunny place.