Given that being busy makes us happier but that our instinct is for idleness, Hsee’s team say there is a case for encouraging what they call ‘futile busyness,’ that is: ‘busyness serving no purpose other than to prevent idleness. Such activity is more realistic than constructive busyness and less evil than destructive busyness.’

[ via ]

Stay with me for a second for a bit of over-analysis.

In Crackdown 2 (which, let’s face it, is really just “Crackdown 2.0,” so this applies to Crackdown 1 as well) you play as a cloned bionic called an “Agent” who is working for one of the apparent three forces fighting for control of the city (The Agency). Now, there’s not much plot besides that – a point many of the game’s reviews have noted as a detriment to its “score” (hahahahaha). It is clear, though, from various audio logs you find (yay, audio logs… sigh) that The Agency aren’t exactly the good guys, that there are other forces at work, blah blah blah blaaahhhhhhhhhh….

The point being that the world might be complex, but you are stuck working for The Agency. There is no choice in this matter. (Well I haven’t yet completed the game – maybe there is a twist? Eh, probably not.) If you run off and try to kill the Peacekeepers (the police force), ignore objectives for too long, or purposefully fail at your missions, the Agency Director (always a voice in your head) will berate you and even has the capacity to punish you!

It’s kind of odd. And what is even more odd about the Agency Director is that he appears to be aware you are playing a game. He will relish in the times that you earn an achievement (“Enjoy your achievement! You earned it!”), delight at your kills (“Your first Cell kill! Feels good, doesn’t it?”), and mock your failures (“Haha fire burns, doesn’t it?”).

It’s possible to say this is where Crackdown 2 just gives up on having any semblance of story and just wants to be an entertaining game. Nothing wrong with that. You can still have a good game that way.

But what if this strange game-self-awareness is actually intentional?

What if the real reason your character has no real free will in Crackdown 2 is that he is essentially a game slave in “real life,” driven only by his desire to earn experience and achievements as they are dolled out by the self-serving Agency Director?

The game-within-a-game mechanics are designed to make your Agent unaware of the complexities of what they are doing. Your Agent’s only intent is to complete objectives, earn experience and power, and leave a total path of death and destruction in his wake, just as The Agency wants it to be.

Also interesting are the civilians in the game. They seem aware of the game-like trick being played on your character, but unaware that they’re in a game themselves. When I was playing it last night, a civilian on the street yelled: “What do you think this is your personal playground? People live here you know!”

If this is true, then Crackdown 2’s theme implies that game mechanics can be used to disconnect the human brain from the real reasons for its decisions. As long as one is constantly supplied with achievable, interesting, but totally meaningless, goals, the brain will push the body on to meet them.

Is the brain really capable of falling for such a trick? Surely not all the time. There are critical people out there who would no doubt say “no!” if they appeared one day in an Agency power suit. But, well, how many people do you know of worked for 30 years at the same job just to be awarded with nothing more than a gold watch and a pat on the back?

Of course, it’s not like our brain wants to be fully aware of everything we do. This is where things like Epic Win, an iPhone app that links daily chores to xp and other game-like goals, are brilliant. Daily household chores are mostly meaningless and simply not worth thinking about. Using game mechanics to make them more interesting and fun makes perfect sense.

But what about killing other people? Already, real war is becoming more robotic and disconnecting. More game-like. Apparently the jury is still out on how dangerous that might be, but Crackdown 2’s vision of the future implies that it’s lethal.

You do know that all that information you give Facebook they use against you, right? From your name and your age to your photos and everything else. They use it to create marketing and advertising perfectly targeted towards you and your friends. It’s totally evil!

Ok, the above quote isn’t actually attributed to anyone. It’s more of a paraphrase. A sentiment that you and I both have probably heard quite frequently as of late. Now, my point here is not to directly defend Facebook and what it does, but if you think about it for a second, is that even possible?

To take your all of your personal information, no matter how expansive of a data set it might be, and use it to perfectly suggest a product that you will absolutely be helpless to purchase seems like an AI-complete problem to me. It would require computers to be as intelligent to people. No matter how much data a system had to work with, how many cross-compares of similar demographics it could draw from, and how many habits it knows, it would never figure out that like my lawn mower in red, and he likes it it green. At least not until it could know what it’s like to be human. The truth is humans just end up being different in very boring, undefinable ways, no matter how similar their data might be.

For example, why are these oh-so-famous famous identical twins, who have nearly the exact same demographics, upbringing and everything, sporting different clothes and hairstyles?

The idea of using demographic information to perfectly target ads is probably very attractive to Facebook’s advertisers, to be sure. That’s probably why they will do nothing to kill that myth. I also have no doubt that targeted ads will be capable of making better suggestions then the television ever could. I just think the paranoia just might not be worth it.

So if what artificial intelligence is solved? Well the computer / robot uprising and the complete eradication of the human race will take place, of course. No worries about being shown the most perfect pair of socks ever then.

And if you know what, even those real humans who know the equivalent of 1000 petabytes of data about you will still fail at making halfway good suggestions sometimes. (“Uh yea, the sweater… uh… is nice, Mom….”)

Anyway. Just another reason to stop worrying and love the internet. That’s all.

(The title for this post comes from this comic.)

whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com

To waste some time today I played some Super Mario Bros 3 on my Wii. I only made it trough three levels before I reached the first Toad House. Upon receiving the item from Toad I decided to investigate something I’ve wanted to know for, I don’t know, maybe 15 years. How exactly does the game decide what item you receive? I remember as a child that people playing Super Mario Bros 3 did the weirdest stuff in Toad Houses to improve their item karma. Running around, doing weird jumps, whatever.

Anyway, I really wanted to know when the game decides what item you receive and how it decides that. Does the game already know what item you receive as soon as you enter the Toad House? Are the items placed in the boxes when you enter the Toad House? Does it do any other weird stuff?

The answer may horrify you.

Toad Houses Disassembled

[ via ]

The ironic thing is that total immersion, by definition, has already existed for pretty much forever. Humans have a long legacy of created entertainments that have had the ability separate our souls from our bodies, our pain, and our lives – even if it is just momentarily. From the first fire we ever gazed into to the best book we ever read, total immersion exists. Yet video game makers are selling immersion snake-oil by the billions. I’m talking about motion controllers, plug in guitars, 3D glasses, etc. Even achievements. These things have their place, to be sure, but perhaps it’s time to finally recognize them for what they are: hollow prophylactics substituting for a better created experience and our disbelief that video games are legitmate.

The Nintendo Wii was of course the OG of this whole thing. It’s success with so-called non-gamers was astounding. That said, if you weren’t a gamer before you got a Wii, then i’m guessing you were simply someone who didn’t have the time, imagination, or belief that video games could be immersive experiences. No offense meant. I don’t hold this against you. This was probably the “big idea” behind the Wii in the first place.

I was right there with you. I present a photo of my very tired significant other proudly showing our line ticket for a Nintendo Wii on release day:

I too believed that the Wii would make video games themselves better experiences.

Of course, I was a pre-Wii gamer too. I guess I forgot that I already had experienced many moments of immersion playing them throughout the years. Here’s an example screenshot of a particularly memorable one (not actually taken by me but used to prove this point):

Not exactly the most mind blowing and exciting looking thing is it? It’s from Silent Hunter 3 – a video game that simulates a submarine. This screenshot portrays a particularly sphincter-tightening moment where several enemy ships have been sighted on the horizon. Oblivious to the grinding pain in my mousing arm, I am in an emotional panic, plotting an intercept course as quickly as I can. Somewhere, off in the distance, my mother is saying something about me doing my homework….

I truly hope the same moments are happening with “non-gamers” become gamers elsewhere, thanks to things like the Wii, because it means we can get over these fake total immersion pieces of crap and get down to really what will create better experiences: better games, and allowing ourselves to enjoy them for what they are.

Consider books. Books, for the most part, have no gimmicks. In fact, they may be one of the least gimmicky mediums ever. They are words on a page. All of the immersion happens in your head, as you read and interpret/imagine what is happening. I’m man enough to admit I have read books that made me cry. So there’s your emotional involvement. Why was that not total immersion? Why do we think that only some kind of weird VR suit is the only way to feel total immersion?

One day we actually will have that magical machine we plug into that lets us smell the virtual flowers and taste the virtual water. But if the experience to “immerses” us, it will have nothing to do with the machine, and everything to do with the flowers and the water. The best way to truly create total immersion is by creating better experiences. Now that we we have a broader acceptance of the idea that that video games just might be capable of involving us emotionally, it’s time to take the next step, and let them do just that.

In generative design a designer does not create the final product but rather a system, algorithm or tool that in turn generates the final product.

Being a computer geek I’ve always been interested in generative design. But generative product design is an something I’ve hardly thought of. If personal fabricators take off some very interesting stuff could develop here. This blog has some interesting thoughts on the subject.

Shapeways: blog: Dasign: data driven, evolutionary, algorithmic & generative design

[ via ]

Keith is someone that my younger brother went to college with. He’s a good looking guy that knows how to skateboard fairly well. He also knows quite a lot about fancy mixed drinks. I met him once IRL and at the time he had red hair but that was not his natural hair color. He used to travel a lot for work but now it sounds like he is settling down. He’s been playing Borderlands a lot, which is a good game. You can follow Keith’s adventures at Twitter.

Golden Orb Spider Farm … speculates on a plausible near future where we become reliant on synthetic organs to replace body parts, in particular the womb. The project is based on research into how spider silk might become a material of choice for prototyping scaffolds on which to grow human tissue. … Golden Orb spider farm speculates that employers may want to persuade their high calibre employees to delay having children in return for hi-tech fertility insurance. Female employees would receive glass Gold Orb spider farms in which to house and breed spiders. The women would feed spiders with flies every day. Once a month, a silking machine would extract several metres from each spider in the farm. In due course this gift is passed on to the child that emerges from the silky womb. Once used, this object might take on a new role of a family heirloom.

Golden Orb Spider Farm – we make money not art

This made me realize that 37 Signal’s whole mission is to remake the workplace.

[ via ]

[ via ]

That Google Buzz kerflufle was scary, huh? No one wants their personal address book viewable to the world. Big mistake on Google’s part, no argument there. And things are just getting scarier in your private areas all the time now, huh? Did you see Please Rob Me? WT ever-loving F! Now, just because you use Twitter, someone can come to your house and steal your shit! And my god, all this time, you’ve been giving people like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon your files, your photos… your lives! Not to mention those blog posts you’ve just been willing publishing – those babies are gonna’ probably get you fired or worse. Oh Jesus, you just now realized it’s only a matter of time until that picture of you dropping trow at the university football game appears on Failblog.org….

And that is what is a thousand times scarier than anything having to do with Google Buzz, Internet: how you’re reacting to it. You’re turtling. Hiding. Feeling more fear about privacy and “internet presence” then ever before. The thing is, that kind of thinking is going to ruin you long before Google Buzz ever does. Hiding is not your thing, Internet. Sharing is.

One of my favorite South Park episodes is Timmy 2000. (If you’ve never seen it, you can watch it for free here). Not only does Timmy 2000 expose one of the most evil drugs ever created (Ritalin) for what it really is, but it also tells a related story about a retarded kid named Timmy who becomes a singer in band. Of course, this offends many, who immediately assume that the band, or the audience, is there to make fun of Timmy (whose gruff, over-excited, repetitive yelling of his own name pairs perfectly with the band’s music). Never mind, of course, the fact that Timmy actually wants to be in the band, and is quite enjoying rocking out the whole time – something apparently obvious only to South Park’s children.

Timmy 2000 so brilliantly shows us that the people that are offended by Timmy aren’t trying to protect Timmy from mockery, but are actually trying to hide ever having to deal with him in the first place. Like all the stupid, offensive, and just plain evil crap on the internet, Timmy, being there, in your face, forces you to deal with him. And, more importantly, Timmy is not rotting away in safe misery inside his house and out of the way of others. He is actually happy. Of course, make no mistake, he could get hurt. Putting someone or something out there for mockery always has the chance to cause hurt. What’s more harmful though is never giving that person or thing the chance to be laughed at to begin with.

There are kids, being born today, who will basically grow up entirely on the Internet. Unlike us old people, these kids will not know a whole lot about the world or themselves before they start sharing their lives with pretty much anyone who wants to watch. They are probably going to do some pretty stupid shit. Doing stupid shit is part of being a kid. It’s how you grow up and learn. Doing stupid shit is part of being an adult sometimes too. Are we really going to tell everyone to stop doing stupid shit? Isn’t the freedom and capability for anyone, anywhere to do stupid shit on the Internet part of what makes the Internet what it is? Part of the social and self discovery we get out of it?

It seems there are two places we can go from here:

The first is a world where suddenly being stupid matters a lot less, and what you do with it matters more. Where, yea, we piss each other off, and we don’t all get along, but at least we accept that the internet is probably big enough for all of us. (It does scale, after all.) That would be nice.

The second is basically something I can only describe as debilitating cultural self-oppression. A world where we all mutually agree that the internet is a place to conform, comply, and go unchallenged, and if you can’t do that then get the hell off – this is not a tool for you. Perfectly cull each tweet. Never post anything even just a little odd to Facebook. And if you do, it had better please the maximum number of people. It had better obtain the maxiumum amount of whuffie. And it it does not, it shouldn’t have been posted in the first place. Of course, if this is how things go, most would simply decide to never post anything at all, just to be safe. Never try and you will never fail.

Or as straight responds to another commenter in this thread on Metafilter:

I live by a simple rule: Don’t do anything on the internet that you wouldn’t want somebody knowing about.

Don’t be a union organizer. Don’t be a whistleblower. Don’t offer ‘lay’ advice in your field of expertise. Don’t stand up for anyone who is unpopular. Don’t comfort a victim of trauma by sharing your own very personal traumatic story. Don’t ask questions about sex or any other embarrassing topic. Don’t participate in an investigation of powerful people or corporations. Don’t put out feelers for other job opportunities when you’ve already got a job. Don’t tell jokes that would offend your mother or your boss or your grandma’s minister or your ten-year-old nephew or your next-door neighbor. Don’t criticize the government. Never write a love letter more personal than a Hallmark Greeting Card.

Just conform. You’ll have nothing to worry about.

I had my moment too, Internet, where I freaked out about the Google Buzz thing. I wanted to stop sharing completely, to be honest. But I’ve since changed my mind. Because I’ve learned it’s OK to show a little fail. It’s just inevitably going to happen if you choose share your life with others. Now, I’m not saying the thing to do in response is immediately go publish a picture of your penis to your Flickr. I’m merely saying we could all stand to relax about this stuff just a teeny, tiny bit. And better yet, have the bravery to keep doing what you do, even after Google broke your heart. Know that we’re all going to be around for a very long time, we are all going to be stupid, and with that we can all learn and change. Dare to Tweet stupid. That’s really what you’re all about, internet, you big, lovely mess.

Love,

Brett

(Thanks to George for some conversations and links that helped inspire this post.)

twoyoutubevideosandamotherfuckingcrossfader.com.

[ via ]

Title: A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter
Year: 2009
Artist: Caleb Larsen
Dimensions: 8″x8″x8″
Medium: Acrylic, custom electronics, programming, internet connection, online auction.
Description: This object perpetually attempts to sell itself on eBay.

A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter (2009) – Caleb Larsen – eBay (item 190367275705 end time Jan-28-10 14:39:47 PST):

Neptune’s Pride

[ via ]

Click for big.

[ via ]

Game mechanics, reward systems, flow theory, all come from our learning about how and why people do “work.” Concepts therein have been bandied around since Karl Marx, and even before, but I think they have never been so well articulated and exploited until now with computer and video games. Being able to achieve and accomplish something in a completely non-tangible, non-permanent way for hours at a time has to mean something about us and how we function – or prefer to function, more specifically. Of course games are designed to change “work” into “fun,” which helps, but it’s almost scary how that “fun” can be essentially the same “fun” again and again. (Not counting for minor derivatives.)

But then consider the web. One of the last big web buzzwords was “user generated content.” I would argue that’s an idea on the verge of a pretty big backlash. It’s getting stale, and has a fatal flaw. Just submitting links to Digg and seeing them rise to the top isn’t gratifying or meaningful anymore. There is an inherent game there, but it hasn’t been exploited. Rather than choose to make a better game, sites like Digg are just struggling to make a buck. This is the flaw, because of course when that happens too much and in the wrong ways it upsets the community, who helped Digg get this far to begin with.

I believe web visitors getting more and more jaded about giving you content without getting a reward or at least a carrot on a stick in return. This reward doesn’t have to be tangible, but it has to be there. “User generated content” should become “user gamed content.” There are sites like Buzzfeed, for example, whether or not they admit it, that behave much more like a game. Buzzfeed is no Digg, of course, at least not yet.

Related: No doubt you’ve seen this checkout terminal at Target….

Available on Etsy.

[ via ]

Web 2.0 Suicide Machine

[ via ]

426 – Mysterious Nebraska-Shaped Field in… Nebraska

Boxee Blog » The Boxee Beta

Holiday gift: acquired.

The Original VIDEO PIZZA

[ via ]

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, formerly a partner with Vinson & Elkins and now a Democratic candidate for Texas Attorney General, has pointed out the uncomfortable fact that a 2005 amendment to the state constitution, which was designed to ban gay marriage, may in fact ban ALL marriage. Certainly this is in part an effort to blame the current attorney general for something, but she may have a point.

Marriage Illegal in Texas, Says Candidate