Revealed Reflection

The Wealth of Networks

2010-03-15T16:46:00.001Z

The Wealth of Networks is a book by Yochai Benkler about how information, knowledge and culture are an essential for human freedom and development.

A network is a group which is interconnected somehow, and therefore can exchange goods, information culture and knowledge - among other transferables.

Wealth, as described by thefreedictionary.com, is "A great amount; a profusion" - e.g, of the transferables written above. I've defined wealth because wealth (as typically viewed) does not just refer to money as a valuable, but knowledge & other things too.

The wealth of a network is the amount a network can acheive/accumulate simply by existing as a network. By transferring, exchanging and trading a network can work symbiotically to become richer. The way in which wealth materials are shared affects the way we see the network, and how we might wish to change it. The book discusses how this wealth can affect human development and freedom.

Below is a video with Yochai Benkler discussing his book and theories.

Common Carriers

2010-03-08T17:20:00.006Z

As a general term, a common carrier is a company which is "in the business of transporting the public, goods, or messages for a fee." FYI, "The public" here could refer to taxis and buses et cetera.
Digitally it is a company which provides "telecommunications services, as by telephone or satellite". (Thank you http://www.thefreedictionary.com/)

There are, of course, legal problems when it comes to being a carrier. If your shipping crack across the ocean then it is absolutely your fault your doing so, ignorance is no excuse. Fraud by the shipper is not considered ignorance by the carrier.

There are exceptions to problems some carriers face, such as damage (which isn't
their fault) or other issues. The following constitute a good defence in court if something happens to goods:

* An act of nature
* An act of the public enemies
* Fault or fraud by the shipper
* An inherent defect in the goods

Being a good common carrier is all about equality in the service. For instance, delivering goods on time to people in a certain area, and slowly to another area would certainly be considered crude service. Any carrier discrimination of any sort is generally a bad thing.

Although legally avoiding the name 'common carrier', ISPs (Internet service providers) are basically common carriers. ISPs are constantly providing low quality service to some customers and high quality to others. Of course, most high-quality spikes are paid for by someone, at the sacrifice of someone else's quality.

Is Open Source good, or bad?

2010-03-01T19:34:00.000Z

First thing I thought when I saw ‘open source’ was “I hope I’m not the only person who doesn’t know what this means”. In fact, I’ve had that thought in a few lectures, but all has always been revealed. Open source is literally what it says, but in computer-whiz jargon (not the general meanings of the terms). Something with an open source means the source code (or programming) of ware is visible, or can be made visible easily; hence ‘open‘. If you want an example try pressing ‘View’ -> ‘Page source’ on your internet browser - you can see the source code for this website, or any website which allows it.

More on open source:
The ‘free software movement’ or ‘open source movement’ is a movement which aims to “free” all information.

First of all I want to mention that the selectively chosen term ‘free’ gives the whole movement positive connotations, disgracing those who are ‘imprisoning’ the information, metaphorically speaking. If we look at the movement as one which aims to “reveal” all information about a programme we get a different picture - with this word it feels like they’re hiding something. My point is, the creators of the movement have clearly selected a word to sway people’s views in their favour, subtly hiding their real intentions - which are to learn from the hidden knowledge (allegedly).

What’s open source really used for now?

Open source allows for the copying of ideas, with adaptations (to avoid copyright) - like in the real world. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to do this in cyberspace, since it’s done everyday in real life? It’s also used for learning (fair enough). It can be used to create better programmes by upgrading the old version with a new idea (which is basically a good thing). Open source makes cyberspace more like the real world, which is how we want it, surely?

Why does information on ourselves cause upset?

2010-02-21T14:02:00.001Z

Information on us is being collected all the time, by various organisations. It’s mostly digitally stored and recorded, with the exception of censuses and surveys. So, what is it about this collection that scares us so much?

Data Leaks
A data leak is just the loss of data because someone decided to leave their USB stick on a train (alternatively the information may have been hacked into, or stolen some other way). There have been several data leaks by the establishment, usually inspiring fear amongst the populace - mainly because the data could have your bank account details on (giving people access to your bank). Here’s a press release of a police data leak from last year:

http://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/infocentre/press_20090309.html

So yeah, bank account details going to strangers, scary stuff. But I wonder if we would be afraid of our information going out if we knew it would be 100% safe and used for legitimate purposes…

Social Networking
Who needs a data leak to get your data when your giving it away? Social networking isn’t run by penitent community-service doers or retired people who don’t need money. It’s run by people who use your information to make money. Everything you put into your Facebook account is analysed and used for advertisements, the right advertisements are then aimed towards you so you’re more likely to click the links. By doing this Facebook can charge affiliates extra because the adverts will be more effective. I can’t see anything in the privacy policy about not just simply selling your information, so I assume they do.

Is information really dangerous?
The question really is, can someone having our information be dangerous? It can certainly be unnerving - perverts and other ‘bad people’ could have our details, criminals might know who is and isn’t rich, or whether you’ve recently bought an alarm system in your house. Aside from the obvious though, I can’t see how someone knowing where I live is really going to ruin my life. After all, maybe I’ll find out where they live instead…

References:

http://www.facebook.com/policy.php
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=privacy+policy&init=quick#!/group.php?gid=23141249296&ref=search&sid=1020327908.616958169..1

Creative destruction and Copyright

2010-02-15T18:43:00.004Z

Creativity is the basis of all technology, with no ability to create we cannot advance, we would be stuck in another age - hoping to discover fire. Creative destruction is when, by creating a new technology (or further advancing an old one), we somehow sabotage existing businesses, livelihoods or other technologies.

What is creative destruction in business?

Say you ran a business - your selling mice interfaces with the roller bottoms, your making a large amount of money from these goods. Now someone comes up with the idea of the laser mouse. A cleaner and more durable technology is now available to PC users, they stop buying your product because of someone else’s creativity. This is an example of creative destruction, someone else’s ideas have now ruined your business. Technology is actually a menace to businesses for this exact reason, change means loss of money.

Loss of livelihood often follows the creative destruction of businesses. If a business goes bankrupt anybody working for it loses their job - this can then start a chain reaction of losses in their life (depending on their ability to make money elsewhere).

Does copyright help defend us from Creative destruction?

In most cases, no. Copyright protects your expression of an idea, rather than an idea itself. That is, a laser-mouse is one expression of an interface, a roller-mouse is another. This means that we can actually copy one another’s ideas, so long as we express it in another way.

In Pablo Picasso’s words: “Bad artists copy. Good artists steal”

Surveillance & Privacy

2010-02-06T13:33:00.001Z

I thought surveillance and privacy was a very interesting topic to look at, especially in-depth. I think we can all agree that it would be nice to know who has their eye on us, who is tapping into our phones, webcams and search engines - who’s collecting information on our activity.

Go outside and your immediately visible from space (satellites can pick up the brand of a cigarette pack, apparently) and are likely to be on camera after a few paces (depending on where you live) - my neighbours have cameras; it actually feels rather intrusive, but they insured us they can‘t see some of our driveway.

If you found this website on Google they know that your IP searched for it, and clicked on it. I say they (to describe out observers) because we (as the people) do not know when we are being recorded a huge percentage of the time. We also have no control over it, we have very little control over our privacy.

People want privacy; however, people also want to be protected by their government. The issue comes when terrorists (or other harmful groups) use privacy to conceal attack plans et cetera - in order to protect everyone the government need to be able to survey them. How do we survey terrorists without surveying everyone else? How do we invade their privacy without invading everyone else’s?

Well the answer is a false sense of privacy and a false sense of security. The fact of the matter is that privacy is often an abstract idea, it‘s all in our heads. Security usually just comes down to dumb luck. Governments either spontaneously find out about something in time, using surveillance, or they don’t and disaster strikes.

Privacy is not actually privacy if your being surveyed (strangely enough); half the time people don’t know that they are being watched - hence they think it’s private and that feeling of privacy is therefore abstract. In fact, I’m surveying you right now using Google analytics - I know you’re here…

How to...

2010-01-31T14:50:00.002Z

Annoy people on online multiplayer videogames

There are a number of ways to cause distress to, annoy, bug, irritate, vex, nark, rile, bother, rankle, peeve, displease or antagonize others online, particularly in online communities. The type of community greatly affects which method of irritation will cause the most agony.

Below is a list of ways to become known as a Griefer (someone who causes Grief - in any form) online. The sub-headers I’ve used below are all arguably a form of griefing. I’ve added a rating scale system (0-10), where 10 represents the greatest cause of upset and 0 the least.

Hacking (Specialist Form)
Hacking requires special training to do, you need to know all about computer coding, you can find out how to hack by asking Google. It takes a long time to learn how to hack, and there’re lots of methods of doing it. Hacking will allow you (if successful) to do a number of things in videogames. It usually advantages you in a videogame, causing you to be the superior player (regardless of skill or in-game-handicaps) or allows you to change your stats to look better than you are. Or you could simply steal someone else’s account which might save you some time.
I would give this a ten, but it’s time consuming and I would never promote it in videogames, a big 0 for hacking.

Glitching
First of all, what’s a glitch? Well, really, it’s a fault in the game. A fault which, when taken advantage of, can give someone superiority. A way to get infinite ammo, for instance, is a glitch. A way to enter a bullet-proof wall is a glitch. In reality it’s perfectly acceptable to take advantage of a glitch, it’s in the game so why shouldn’t it be used?
I’d give this method a seven, it’s unbelievably annoying if someone knows a glitch that you don’t know and exploits it. Go to youtube and you'll find loads of game glitch videos, to tell everyone how to do them. Glitches are removed usually, in game updates.

Teamkilling
Need I say more? If you enter a game where there is no punishment for shooting your allies and you’re a griefer you can definitely ‘get off’ here.
Definitely a nine, particularly if there is no respawning.

Verbal Abuse
Go on any game where microphones are common and you will hear verbal abuse. It’s boring more than annoying.
At least five, depending on how squeaky and loud the person’s voice gets.

Lame/unskilful Weaponry
No one likes to take a one-hit kill (HEAR MY ROCKETS ROAR!). Using a rocket-launcher or other explosives is sure to fire up someone’s anger. Rub it in their face afterwards for maximum affect.
An eight. Again, non-respawn games add annoyance levels up a notch.

Well, there’s five great ways to become a griefer, good luck.

Can a computer really make art?

2010-01-17T13:12:00.005Z

Today I’ve been looking at art in computers. We looked, in class, at literature in computers. I wanted to take a look at whether or not a computer can actually create art. My first impression was that computers could not create art, nor could any art be created on, or by, a computer. The fact is that art is opinionated, particularly on computers.

The way I see it, art cannot be created by a machine – since its ideas are actually somebody else’s, who have programmed it to think and create in a particular way. The real artist is the programmer, not the programme – as the puppeteer is the culprit, not the puppet.

Well, as I know nothing about art, I felt it would be best to first find out what makes art. However, I am sceptical about whether or not there is a definition for art, since it’s probably extremely subjective. Naturally, I searched “what is art?” on Google to find my answer.

So, what is art? Well, to no surprise whatsoever, i found that art has no true definition, or at least it “lacks a satisfactory definition.” Instead, i found a great quote, art is: "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Thank you http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html)

Here’s the best example I could find of a programme making art – you have heard of “The Sims”, right? Well, in-game, you can make rather aesthetic images by telling your avatar to paint – it’s a great example of a programme able to make art:

Well, programmes don’t have skill or imagination. Programmes however, can definitely create aesthetic pictures which contain experiences for others to share. The work produced by an art-creating machine can therefore be defined as art, which kind-of makes them artists - just because a programme is told what to do, and stays within guidelines, it doesn’t make it any less of an artist, surely? Humans stay within their own boundaries too (with the exception of art in the form of a toilet).

So, can a computer make art? Well the answer is: yes, the real question is: what makes an artist?

Immersion

2009-12-14T17:39:00.009Z

Immersion is all about how ‘at one’ you are with something that isn’t necessarily real; immersion is when our minds make it real. There are a few different types. They all however, are a measure of how real something feels in a person’s perception.

There are arguably roughly six forms of immersion. Immersion is often found hard to understand, especially if you have never played a videogame. I’ve used common examples to make it easier to grasp, as below:

Narrative immersion
This is one of the oldest forms, and is a measure of how invested you are into a story. A good example is when a child listens to a children’s-story book and they often beleive it to be real, or at least feel very involved with the story, or its characters. This can happen to anyone reading books, or indulging themselves with the storyline of anything. In a videogame context this is true for the plot of the game.

Strategic immersion
Strategic immersion is all about strategy, and how our minds become immersed in the logic needed to complete a challenge. For instance, in a game of ‘noughts and crosses’ (tic-tac-toe if you're American) we try to think out a game-plan which will render the other player incapable of stopping us from winning. Chess is a more sophisticated example. We have a large range of choices in the game, and we have to think our way out.

In a videogame context, immersion in point-and-click games, such as ‘command & conquer’, is a great instance of how our minds indulge in the strategies necessary to be the victor. We need to choose our forces wisely in order to achieve our goal.

(Command & Conquer Generals : Zero Hour, Screenshot)

Tactical immersion
Personally, in essence, I think tactical immersion is the result of strategic immersion. Where the tactics we choose are a result of our chosen strategy. For instance, in videogames, we might choose to attack from terrain where infantry cannot reach. This could be because in hindsight we have chosen, strategically, to use aircraft (which are unaffected by most terrain types), knowing that the enemy has produced foot-troops. You then feel part of it (almost like a general) when your tactical actions result in success.

Spatial immersion
Spatial immersion is all about the user feeling a sense of reality when they are thrown into any simulated environment. It’s usually because the environment is convincing enough that we believe it could be real, and therefore we feel like we are actually there. As it stands, this sense of reality is mostly psychological because we lack commercially available systems which immerse into a physical environment.

(Second Life, Screenshot)

Psychological immersion
This happens when a user confuses a virtual world with reality - usually because they are captivated by the delights of the virtual world.

Sensory immersion
This happens when we enter a virtual world, using technology, which makes us perceive it all as physically and psychologically real – this is partially commercially available, given that we now have the wii-mote.

(Wii-mote)

In a way being immersed in a game is a gift, or a curse (mega-cliché), in that being fully immersed allows us to completely enjoy a game and it can feel very real. However, full immersion can come with the price of forgetting the difference between the game and reality, or ignoring it in ignorance (ignorance of the difference between reality and virtuality) rather than for enjoyment.

Apparently, immersion can be such a curse that a videogame called Final Fantasy XI (pay-monthly online game) has its own warning message:

"Exploring Vana'diel is a thrilling experience. During your time here, you will be able to talk, join, and adventure with many other individuals in an experience that is unique to online games. That being said, we have no desire to see your real life suffer as a consequence. Don't forget your family, your friends, your school, or your work."

Are we expected to immerse so deeply that we believe we are the game?

Animations, screenshots and machinima

2009-12-07T00:07:00.014Z

Animations, screenshots and machinima aren't something that we have studied in class (I don’t know if it will come up) but they interest me, especially since I use them all myself.

Animations & screenshots are common words, you probably know what they are, but just in case:

An Animation – A series of images strung together which, by making a slight change to each picture, results in what looks like continuous movement to the human eye. The Simpsons, for example, is a popular animation. Simple animations are easy enough to make, but lengthy ones take a LONG time and complex ones take skill.

I saw an animation which I found quite fun – because it contains two people fighting… I’m not sadistic…

Anyway, this is it:

Naturally, I wanted to make my own cheap version of it… On paint (bad idea)… It took me a very, very… very long time.

A Screenshot – this is simply a picture of what is on the screen (Also known as a screen-grab). I won’t bore you with anymore details.

So, what’s machinima?
Machine + cinema = Machinima (In case you didn’t notice)
Well, before our last lecture, I had never heard of the word. Fortunately, Dr Gavin Stewart (our lecturer) pointed out that the last video I made was machinima. I wanted to know what he meant, so I researched it.

Machinima is basically movies made out of graphic-rendering engines to generate computer animation. In simple words, it’s a recording of your screen (usually whilst your playing a videogame). The recording is taken by software. It therefore only captures the audio from your speakers (and microphones in some cases), and the visual on your screen.

I made my own game machinima ages ago (not the one I put in ‘interactivity in gaming’) – i dubbed some music over the top of it. It was just a video to show other gamers a good skill-set in a game. Here it is:

People have made some good dramas out of machinima. Just by making movements on a game and using some voiceovers we can make some pretty-great videos. The popular web series ‘Red vs Blue’ was simple recordings of Halo (a videogame) with voiceovers. They made some funny comedies. Here’s one:

Anyway, there you have it; animations, screenshots and machinima!

Computers, but like humans

2009-12-05T20:18:00.014Z

It’s philosophised that one day computers will be able to think for themselves and learn – leading to the computers gaining equal rights to humans. Just like animals, machines would become sentient beings; but with the learning, thinking and more importantly, emotional capabilities of humans (hence the equal rights).

Of course, there’s nothing in stone to say they will acquire equal rights, or gain our abilities. There are however, a number of machines in futuristic movies that give us an idea of how they might work. It’s quite interesting to see how these futuristic machines are portrayed in movies, especially since most of them seem to lead to human doom.

‘The terminator’ (Series of Movies):

A lovely image…
But let’s be honest, noone wants this thing chasing them (it's a disguised robot in the movie by the way), especially if he’s packing an “Uzi 9mm”. In case you’re not familiar, the robot in this movie has no emotions – like us humans –; instead, he just takes orders and therefore has no fear.

I said ‘he’ just now… should I call it a ‘he’ just because it looks like a guy? The fact remains that it has no gender.

Anyway, how about ‘V.I.K.I’ from ‘iRobot’ (Movie):

Actually this one doesn’t look that bad…
It doesn’t look bad, and actually isn’t bad at all (depending on whether you see things from its view). This robot decides that it can help us preserve ourselves by locking us away in our homes. Basically, its human-protection schemes get a little over-protective, and us humans end up locked indoors by robot minions that are under its control. Yes, the robot has thought about how to protect us, but not in a humane way. Don’t worry though; it’s for our own good.

Ok, ok; those are the evil movie robots, what about the ones that serve us? There must be some positive future for us in machine technology – according to movies, at least.

Quantum Leap (TV series):

Awhh, there’s little Ziggy…
Ziggy is a hand-held computer that has emotions. It serves Al and Sam in a TV series about leaping into the past, from one person to the next. It helps by providing large amounts of information to them very quickly. Sometimes, if Ziggy gets something wrong, he gets stroppy and refuses to answer a question! So, are emotions a good idea for a serving robot?

Maybe one day we will have computers like the above. Do we really want deadly robots though? Or robots that get the wrong idea about saving humans. I think researchers need to be very careful about what they invent, don’t you?

Computer Interfaces

2009-11-29T17:53:00.009Z

What’s an interface you say? Well, it’s basically the hardware we use to interact with a computer. The mouse you’re holding, for instance, is an interface. The monitor you’re looking at is an interface. It’s a peripheral device that we use to do our thing on a machine. Not just PC’s either. Interfaces are connected with lots of electronics, including; phones, game consoles, TV’s, DVD players, etc. etc. the list goes on.

Interface history is actually rather funny. The extremes people had to put up with in order to make a machine do what’s considered a simple function now are unbelievable. If interfaces were anything like it used to be today, I don’t think people would bother blogging.

The old ways of making a machine do something always required effort, not just a click. For instance, as mentioned by our tutor, punched tape. Punched tape was literally holey tape that was fed into a machine, the layout of the holes told the machine what to do. That meant in order to create a new function or instruction we needed to start punching some tape, yay.

Where are interfaces going?
I wanted to question where interfaces were going to be soon. For instance, could we have a mind-reading device – this might save us the use of our index finger; thank heavens.

Ok, we’re not that far yet, but by the looks of it we’re definitely going to be seeing some major technological advances soon. Being a human is preventing me from seeing the future at the moment; so instead, here’s Microsoft’s latest interface:

Beautiful, don’t you think? We could have interactive systems all round our home. I loved the idea of having a table-computer, ready to be used by multiple people at once. This is actually available by the way. It’s expensive, at $10,000.

Gesture-based interfaces are what I want to see the most. The Wii-mote by Nintendo was one great leap towards creating a wonderful new interface. It would be cool if one could punch the air in real life and the result being the character you’re controlling on a videogame punching virtual air, or giving someone an uppercut in the chin. (The next level of gaming I feel). Of course, systems like this exist already, but not on a commercial scale.

Actually, it seems that most the latest interface technology is about improving interactivity - as i have mentioned (specifically for gaming) in another post.

A film called 'Minority Report' - based on the future - contains a brilliant example of an extremely interactive system, for quickly grabbing as much information as possible, and actually looks like it would take some skill to use.
Here's a snippet of the interface:

Unbeleivably, we already have a system just like this. It's called 'g-speak' and was created by 'oblong'. Check it out!

References:
http://designreviver.com/inspiration/the-future-of-interface-design/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP5y7yp06n0
http://gizmodo.com/264338/microsoft-surface-confirmed-touch+sensitive-10k-minority-report-table

Cybermen are coming.

2009-11-22T22:26:00.006Z

Are Human modifications unethical?
Humans are made up of parts, almost like a giant 3D jigsaw puzzle. Assuming that we can safely replace each part, we should be able to make a mostly-artificial sentient human.

In theory, we should also be able to upgrade ourselves as we wish. Perhaps an indestructible skull for bike riders? That would certainly rid them of their vision-impairing helmets.

As it stands, we use a lot of modifications in everyday-life. Hearing aids, pacemakers, screws, plates, cybernetic hands… Yes! We have cybernetic hands now, which can actually feel! This was news to me, there’s a great video on BBC News. That being said, this is only one cybernetic hand, they aren’t being built in bulk just yet.

So, we have an artificial body-part that can partially imitate our organic version. This is great for someone who has lost their hand, and it seems reasonable enough that we replace their hand with one of the same, or lesser, functions. This would be humane, and the modifications that I’ve mentioned above are all very humane; however, what if someone designs a hand that can resist inhuman temperatures, or can crush titanium? This would give people unfair advantages, and make them physically better than other people, almost like the updated versions of machines - which are not always actually better.

Coincidentally we looked at a great book about equality in ‘Essential Skills’. The book was called Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The idea was that government was trying to make people equal by downgrading everyone considered superior, using modifications. One of the ways chosen to downgrade the intelligent was to prevent concentration by playing loud, annoying noises in their earpieces. Downgrade research would certainly be a popular choice nowadays…

I was reading a forum that had the BBC News cyber-hand article linked on it, I loved what one of the participants wrote:
”It wont be a problem until they discover that hand is packing mini nukes and a laser.”

When I think of Cyborgs, I always see them as somewhat war-related, or subservient, and emotionless – like the Cybermen from Doctor Who. Cyber-hands could easily conceal weapons in the not-too-distant future, making them perfect counterparts of terrorists. Customs would face some major issues if this ever happened; us infidels would be in a lot of trouble.

The question is, is it right that we should decide to have advantages over other people? If intelligence, or toughness, is from birth; then we accept it. I think upgrading ourselves however, is going to cause big arguments. What’s more, it’ll cause mayhem, think about having a pub-fight against the terminator!

Cyberspace's cyberspace's cyberspace!

2009-11-16T17:00:00.011Z

I’m going to be talking a lot about cyberspace in this post. It’s therefore important that you know what it is if you want to understand. The definition of cyberspace is actually rather subjective (damn those subjective definitions). In short, it's any virtual world.

Our class took a look at cyberspace, and the idea of putting human minds into computers – to become part of it. We also philosophised over where we go when we are distracted. For instance, why we can continue to walk when we’re on the phone, but can easily bump into objects because our minds are just somewhere else.

If we could put a mind, or consciousness, which could learn, into cyberspace, it might decide to make a cyberspace of its own. We could give the being a body and world; we could even choose whether or not it was mortal. In fact, if we could put a consciousness into a machine, we could act God to sentient beings, changing anything we want. Rather like your god(s) does with you, if you have one.

Of course, this would pose a rather ethical dilemma. The average person would probably consider it wrong for someone to have 100% power over another person’s life; why should they have such power?

Can there ever be a cyberspace inside cyberspace?
Virtual worlds already exist where we have videogames inside the world. A good example is on the Playstation 2, called ‘Second Sight’ (third-person shooter). Within the game you can find floppy discs that contain mini-games on them. Make your player insert a floppy into a PC and voila, we have a game inside a game, cyberspace in cyberspace. However, the gamer is controlling the character, it has no conscience of its own. Technically we have achieved cyberspace’s cyberspace; however, it’s seemingly pointless since we could just save ourselves the trouble of making two platforms for one application.

In theory we could have infinite numbers of cyberspace, each lower down on a hierarchical scale, each playing God for the next. What if we’re already on such a scale, but not the highest up…

Interactivity in gaming

2009-11-08T23:31:00.009Z

Let’s first find a dictionary definition of interactive: Acting or capable of acting on each other. (Taken from www.thefreedictionary.com).

So, what about game interactivity?
Interactivity is one of the key elements that truly distinguish a game. As it stands, most leading gaming organizations are trying to create evermore interactive systems and games for customers to enjoy. It’s now becoming the basis behind all games, with users able to use, change, move or destroy objects that have no reference to the actual storyline therein. There’re two main forms of interactivity; those being human to computer, and human-to-human.

Human to computer interaction consists mainly of shaping your environment, or communicating with NPC’s (non-player characters – characters which are pre-programmed into the game, not directly controlled by a gamer) within it. Players can manipulate objects, or choose different ways of dealing with NPC’s they meet in their game. The options they choose will then shape the outcome. “Deus Ex” (available on PC & Playstation 2) states on the back, “Your relationship with scores of other characters affects the outcome of the game”. In this example, choosing to be compassionate towards specific characters often rewards you. For instance, giving food to a homeless NPC at a certain stage results in the NPC giving you a clue, that there’s a secret entrance to the enemy headquarters. Here we gain help for positive interactions with NPC’s.

Human to human interaction is all about interactions with other gamers, over the Internet, via a local area network (LAN), or split-screen play on one console. Users can work as a team to take down NPC foes or solve riddles, or do various other activities (depending on the game genre); or play competitively either in teams or as a free-for-all to complete their goal. Team integration is often of the utmost importance for more hardcore games, particularly for gamers who consider themselves to be “pros”.

The level of teamwork required differs between games. Collaboration between members and the right tactics can often decide the outcome of a match. Team members in certain games, such as ‘Guild Wars’ (available on PC), rely on one another to stay alive; a balanced team will often consist of at least one player with skills that only have defence capabilities. If this defence player is not watched-over by the offence players it often means team failure. Constant human-to-human interaction via the game is therefore very important for success in the game.

I’ve made a video to demonstrate human to computer interaction; on a PC game called Half-Life 2. The video looks at a few different examples of interactions. Please forgive the low visual quality:

So, as you can see from the video; game interactivity is simply the amount we can meddle with the characters or environment in a game, and the resulting reaction we get out of our interference.

Technology delivering the facts

2009-11-02T00:04:00.003Z

In recent decades technology has made a significant change in the way the media can present news. Before durable, reliable and easily carried cameras were invented, very little footage was actually produced and shown at cinemas or on television for the purpose of delivering news. Additionally, early film footage had no audio included with it. Instead, voiceovers were played to inform the listener about the scenes that were being shown. The link, below, supplies an example of this style of early film-based reporting. The clip is typical of the news offerings of the famous Pathe News service.

As you can see and hear, the footage features a plummy BBC-standard news-reader’s voice, heavily complimented by a triumphal musical accompaniment, designed to lift the viewers spirits and to help in their understanding of the sterling work being carried out by the Royal Navy at that time. The voiceover explains the tasks that are being undertaken by the sailors in the film, to make sure it’s all very clear to the viewer. This type of news footage was essentially propaganda. The technology available did not allow for much else.

Judging by today’s relatively sophisticated standards of reporting, this kind of broadcast would be seen as a joke by a modern audience. The changes in our perception of reporting probably has as much to do with the much greater amount of news that is available to us today, and the modern analysis and dissection of the motives of politicians, as it has to do with the advances in technical innovation.

Before this propagandist-style of film footage and its predecessor, radio, news travelled via horseback, rather than wires, and often arrived far too late for a timely reaction, especially in war. The telegraph began to become the instrument of the newsroom in the 1840’s, delivering news a day or two later than it happened. The news would be edited in newsrooms and delivered to the public in the form of newspapers.

Fortunately, today, we have more than satisfactory equipment for producing videos to go with our televised news. This includes audio recorders that automatically synchronize sound to the video as it’s recorded. We still use voiceovers, but they point out less of the obvious, and are often played over a video’s audio. Here’s a good example:

You can see the huge increase in quality of the video, and we have sound from the scene in this one. The speaker also speaks much more objectively.

Videophones, used by journalists and the general public have had a huge impact on the amount of news recorded as video footage. Since over 60% of the world’s population owns a mobile phone, most of which now have camera and/or video function; it’s no surprise that a lot of news is caught by bystanders. On top of this, the Internet has created a borderless news source. It’s now extremely easy to have your footage published online, with video hosting websites such as YouTube always on standby for you to upload any video you want.

There is no doubt that vastly improved technology has provided the world with a massively increased resource for all types of information, including instantly delivered topical news. In so doing it has, for most of us, removed the barriers of censorship and state interference.

Reference : MSNBC

You are being monitored...

2009-10-23T19:39:00.006+01:00

My last ‘Digital Cultures’ workshop covered technology, and the way in which digital has effected it. We also took a look at how data is forever being collected about us on the Internet, by organisations, such as Google. I was unhappy to hear just how much was being collected by the world’s number one search-engine.

The fact is that our privacy is at ‘risk’ whenever we browse the Internet, particularly when we use a search engine. The majority of search-engines decreased/introduced an IP data retention time in 2007. Google announced anonymity of users in March of 2007, and many leading search engines followed it. Google’s justification for data collection is that they are using the data to improve their services, such as improved security, and more relevant results on searches. Google’s official Blog states that their current IP retention time is 18 months. This means that for up to 18 months after searching something, it can still be traced back to your machine.

Google’s Privacy Policy tells us their server logs may include “information such as your web request, Internet Protocol address, browser type, browser language, the date and time of your request and one or more cookies that may uniquely identify your browser.” In other words, they’re storing what you’re searching, when you’re searching, and where you’re searching it from.

Should we feel safe using Google?
Google has taken “appropriate security measures” (see Privacy Policy) to ensure that our private information isn’t viewed by anyone planning to use it for illegitimate reasons. Since some searches are considered ‘indecent’, or are illegal, we shouldn’t be searching them anyway. Additionally most people don’t actually care if somebody knows that they searched for the phrase “How to control Herpes” on Google, as it’s barely a threat to their privacy if someone finds out. After all, you could be searching for a friend. Most people seem to consider that the likelihood of anyone who knows them finding out their personal information is minute and perhaps they are not too bothered if they do.

That being said, if you’ve been searching for drugs on Google, be sure to tell the police that some crack addicts have recently burgled you.

**Update**: (10/11/09)
I recently discovered updated information on Google. Google keeps your IP address for 9 months only (not 18 as written above); however, cookie information is still retained for 18 months.
See here for more details.

Why do we blog?

2009-10-20T18:24:00.008+01:00

This is the first time I have ever ‘blogged’ - is this an official verb yet? I’m sure it’ll appear in a trusted dictionary soon enough.

Since this is the first post in my Blog I felt it necessary for it to question why we blog. The answer, to no surprise, is difficult. It’s difficult because the answer is subjective. Everyone gets something different from blogging.

Personally I could only think of three reasons to blog before investigating it:
Having your own work published.
For fun.
To hone your writing skills.

It took one search on www.google.co.uk to find that there’re a myriad of factors causing us to continue blogging. I found that http://www.problogger.net/archives/2008/10/21/why-do-we-blog/ provided me with over 100 answers to my question, in survey form, the perfect way of collecting lots of different subjective answers.

It turns out that Blogs can provide us with fame, jobs, partners, friends, knowledge, skills, hobbies, a personal thought bank, information, a way to learn and teach, a perfect sharing opportunity, inspiration, communication… the list goes on. Some blogs have a huge following. This provides the authors with a number of advantages such as money from advertising and offers to appear in other parts of the media, such as television.

So to reiterate, why do I blog? Answering this without having fully experienced blogging would be pointless. I genuinely believe I will find my own answer as my blog progresses. As it stands, from this one post, I can see why people find it fun, and I feel a sense of achievement as I write. I hope my future posts can be as fulfilling as this one.